RAM NIVAS Vs. HARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision which is directed against an appellate order of Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 21. 12. 54, has arisen in the following circumstances. On the recommendation of the Tehsildar Chaksu the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur, by his order dated 1. 12. 1953, appointed Ghasi S/o Shiva Ram, Ram Nivas S/o Madho, and Har Nath S/o Uda, as Patels of village Mundya which was formerly held in muafi, but subsequently became khalsa. At the time it was held in muafi, the State-grantee who had the right to appoint a Patel in pursuance of the provisions of sec. 33 (3) of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act did not do so. Ghasi and Har Nath, opposite party, were working as de facto Patels after the village was resumed by the State. Ghasi submitted an application to the Tehsil for entering his name and that of Har Nath in the register of Patels. He based his claim on the ground that he had been formerly working as a Patel and so had Har Nath. Ram Niwas applicant filed an uzardari alleging that Madho who had adopted him as his son had been working as a Patel and after his death he had also worked in that capacity. Ram Nivas's claim to be appointed as a Patel was contested by Har Nath on the ground that there was no tangible evidence to show that Madho had been appointed as a Patel under the orders of some competent authority. It is hardly necessary to trace the previous history and vicissitudes of litigation between the parties beyond pointing out that Har Nath who had been constantly opposing the claim of Ram Nivas to the appointment of a Patel lodged an appeal before the Additional Collector Jaipur against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur appointing Ghasi, Ram Nivas and Har Nath as Patels. His appeal was rejected by the learned Additional Collector on 31. 8. 54. He filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. The appeal was accepted on the ground that the trial court had not tried the case according to proper procedure and its decision was based upon insufficient material and could not, therefore be maintained. The learned Additional Commissioner remanded the case to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer with the direction that he should try the case afresh on the four issues which had been framed by the learned Additional Commissioner and were to the following effect - (1) Whether Madho was entitled to succeed Siria his son and worked as Patel after Siria's death ? If so whether he worked under the orders of competent authority ? (2) Whether Ram Nivas is the adopted son of Madho and is in the family of Siria and Madho and whether he has worked or has been working as patel since the death of Madho and if so whether he has so worked or has been working in the knowledge and with the sanction of the revenue authorities ? (3) Whether in the past Ram Niwas and Madho have been paid remuneration payable to Patels ? (4) Wheter the names of Madho and Ram Niwas are entered in any land record or settlement record or any other revenue papers as Patels ?

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the opposite-party with regard to the maintainability of this application in revision. His contention was that the application in revision which was filed on 26. 7. 56, after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 on 1st July, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), did not lie to the Board as the matter relating to the appointment of Patels was a non-judicial matter. Section 83 of the said Act lays down that such as application would lie to the Government.