MALA Vs. GANGADASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances that give rise to this revision may briefly be stated thus : - - One Gangaram applied before the Tehsildar, Jhunjhunu on 6.11.51 against the Patwari and the Girdawar with the allegations that the land in dispute was wrongly entered by them in the name of Mala and others (who are the applicants before us.) The Tehsildar whose name cannot be gathered from the record, passed an order directing the Girdawar to proceed to the spot, make enquiries and enter "Taneja" with the names of the parties. As nothing was done by the Girdawar, Gangaram presented another application on 28.11.51 repeating the allegations contained in his previous application. On 12.2.52 Badri Prasad Sharma, Inspector, made a report on the previous application that as the complaint was directed against him and hence the Tehsildar himself may proceed to the spot. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted at a leisurely pace by the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar made his recommendations to the Tehsildar on 5.2.55. The Tehsildar submitted the papers to the S. D. O. who directed that the entry be amended as suggested by the Tehsildar and as the Patwari and the Girdawar were responsible for irregularities, suitable action be taken against them. The applicants applied to the Collector, Jhunjhunu that the S. D. O. had decided the case without hearing the parties and without conducting any enquiry and hence a reference may be made to the Board. The learned Collector observed that the decision of the S.D.O. was justified as the disputed fields had been attached under orders of a criminal court and hence the request out forth by the applicants to make a reference to the Board was rejected. The applicants have come up in revision against his decision.

(2.) The opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice and hence the case was heard ex parte. In view of the order that we are making in the case, we refrain from expressing any opinion upon the merits at this stage. Suffice to observe that the matter was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. He should have held the enquiry himself in accordance with legal provisions which mean that he should have called the parties, ascertained the points of dispute, recorded the evidence that may have been adduced by the parties and after appreciating it in a proper manner should have come to his own finding. As is apparent from the record, he did not record any evidence himself nor gave notice to the parties, but simply on the report of the Tehsildar passed an order at the back of the parties concerned. There has thus been a grave and material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the S.D.O. concerned and the order passed by him stands vitiated We would, therefore allow this, revision set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. on 3.7.55 and remand the case back to him with the direction that if be tried and decided afresh in accordance with law.