HARICHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances that give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as below - - On 2.4.51 Ramjilal s/o Ramgopal applied before the Collector, Bharatpur for permission to purchase Nazool land No, 23 lying near Railway Station, Bharatpur. During the course of the proceedings that were carried out upon this application Harichand also appeared on the scene and wanted to purchase the land for himself. The land was put to public auction and Harichand offered the highest bid which was eventually accepted by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, and the land in dispute was sold to Harichand (vide memo Mo. 3842 -R -l (23) dated 9.7.53, from the Divisional Commissioner Jaipur to the Collector, Bharatpur). Harichand deposited the price of the land and was granted a certificate of sate on 26.8.33. On 4.1.54 Ramjilal appeared before the Collector, Bharatpur and presented an application to the effect that Harichand while constructing his house upon the land purchased by him from the Nazool Department has encroached about 5 ft. by projecting his iron girder and was about to put up a covered balcony over that encroachment.

(2.) The Collector deputed the Nazool Inspector to inspect the site who reported that 4 -1/2 ft. of Nazool land had been wrongfully encroached upon by Harichand. The Collector also inspected the site and on 31.3.54 and passed an order in the course of which he observed that the land in dispute should not have been sold to Harichand and that it should have been allowed to remain open. But as it had been sold already he ordered that Harichand may be allowed to have projection of 2 -1/2 ft. towards the front side in the first storey and on other sides a projection of 3 ft in the, second storey and if there be any excess over these dimensions it may be removed. Harichand has come up in revision before us against this order of the Collector.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well The Government Advocate was allowed adequate opportunity to show us the law under which the action taken by the Collector could be considered valid. The learned Government Advocate in turn made a number of repeated references to the Collector but no satisfactory reply could be received by him. The learned Government Advocate has therefore frankly conceded his inability to show us any law under which the action of the Collector may come. We have carefully examined the provisions of Circular Nazool No. 1, dated 30.5.1899 and Circular Nazool No 2, dated 22.9.1899 of the former Bharatpur State. There is nothing in the provisions of these circulars which may justify and Nazool Officer to direct removal of encroachment upon Nazool land by an executive or administrative order. In fact in circular No. 1 it has been made clear that tenants of Nazool land who make default in payment of rents will be proceeded against in regular civil courts. In circular No. 2 it has also been made clear that wherever any dispute arises the Nazool Department may sue or be sued in civil court but will be exempt from payment of court fees. In other words, it becomes clear from these circulars that the intention was that wherever any dispute arose between the Nazool Department and any citizen of the State its decision lay with the civil courts in accordance with the regular procedure obtaining there.