ABDUL HAMID KHAN Vs. CHOTHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 26 Rajas than Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 against an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 29. 4. 54 in a case relating to entries in the parcha chak-bandi.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. WE feel constrained to observe that the manner in which the case was handled by the subordinate officers reflects no credit upon them but discloses a deplorable state of affairs. The Assistant Settlement Officer by his decision dated 2. 3. 51 decided that Khasra No. 398 and 401/1 should be entered in the pracha chakbandi of the applicant on the ground that the opposite party Chauthmal had himself admitted that the applicant was eligible for the same. On that date it appears that the Assistant Settlement Officer had no means of ascertaining the actual area that was taken up in the road and hence he directed his staff to carry out proceedings in that behalf. Ultimately on 17. 5. 51 the same Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order which in fact meant that the decision dated 2. 3. 51 regarding Khasra Nos. 398 and 401/1 be reversed and that these numbers be entered in the parcha chakbandi of the opposite party. The applicant was informed neither of the order dated 2. 3. 51 nor of the subsequent order dated 17. 5. 51. It appears that the changes in the parcha chakbandi were eventually carried out in accordance with the instructions of the Assistant Settlement Officer contained in his so called order dated 17. 5. 51, and on 15. 4. 53 the applicant coming to know of these changes appeared before the Assistant Settlement Officer and requested that the order dated 17. 5. 51 being ex parte should be set aside and he be given an opportunity of being heard in the case, The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the applicant had filed no appeal against the order dated 2. 3. 51 and hence his application had no substance. The Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Commissioner before whom first and second appeals were filed by the applicant contented themselves merely with the repetition of this argument and hence this revision before us.