MAN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Mansingh for writ of certiorari against the decision of the Board of Revenue in a correction of papers case during settlement operations in the district of Jalore.

(2.) THE facts, which have led to this application; may be briefly narrated. THE applicant claims that he was granted half village of Charli in Tehsil Ahore, Dist. Jalore by the jagirdar of Ahore whose younger brother he is. Sometime thereafter settlement operations started in this village, and in July, 1951, during there operations, an entry is said to have been made ex-parte in the revenue records in which Bersingh. opposite party No. 5, was shown as a co-sharer of certain land attached to 8 wells, and as full owner of certain other lands -. THE applicant's claim with respect to these lands was that he was the sole owner of these lands by virtue of the grant from the jagirdar of Ahore, and the entries made ex-parte by the Settlement Department were incorrect. Consequently he applied to the Assistant Record Officer. Jalore on thel26th of July, 1951, for correction of these entries, THE matter was enquired into by the Assistant Record Officer, and he passed an order on the 21st of November, 1952, holding that some of the lands were the joint property of the applicant and the opposite party Bersingh, and the other land was the exclusive property of the applicant. He, therefore, ordered correction of entries in the record of rights accordingly. THE matter was taken in appeal by both parties to the Record Officer. THE appeal was decided on the 30th of April, 1954. THE Record Officer practically maintained the order of the Assistant Record Officer, but specified the shares of each party in those lands in which the Assistant Record Officer had held that they were joint THEreupon, both parties again went in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Bersingh had always been contending from the beginning that the Settlement Authorities had no jurisdiction to decide this matter of proprietary right, and should have left the dispute to be decided by the proper court. THE applicant did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities to decided the dispute. He only challenged the correctness of the decision. THE Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the appeal of the applicant, and held that he was solely entitled to be entered in the revenue record on all the lands as landlord; and Bersingh was not entitled to be entered on any land. THEreupon, Bersingh went in revision to the Board of Revenue, and again raised the point that the Settlement authorities should not have decided this question. THE Board of Revenue accepted the revision of Bersingh in part, and set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and restored the order of the Record Officer. THEreupon, the present application was made to this Court.