KANHAIYALAL Vs. RAMDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision which is directed against the order of the Additional Com-missioner, Jaipur, dated 7. 6. 1956, has arisen in the following circumstances. Kanhaiyalal Nanag Ram and others applied for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against Ram Deva and others in the court of the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Jaipur, in respect of land measuring 22 bighas Chahi and 115 bighas barani (Kham) in village Parmanpura on 20. 7. 1953. After necessary enquiry the trial court ordered reinstatement of the applicants on 14-10 53. The applicants applied for the execution of the order and possession of the land in dispute was delivered to them by the Anti-Ejectment Officer. The non-applicants filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer. The revision was accepted by the Board on 8. 4. 1954 and the order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer was set aside. The non-applicants filed an application for execution of the order of the Board before the S. D. O. , Kotputli on 26. 4. 1954. Possession was alleged to have been delivered to the non-applicants on 19. 5. 1954 by Kanjilal Girdawar in compliance with the order of the Board. A supurdnama was executed by the non-applicants acknowledging delivery of possession to them. It appears that certain developments took place subsequently and the non-applicants were deprived of possession over the land in dispute. They submitted a second application to the S. D. O. , Kotputli on 10. 6. 1954 praying that possession over the land in dispute be delivered to them in execution of the order of the Board. The learned S. D. O. rejected the same on 12. 6. 54 on the ground that as the order of the Board had been executed once it could not be executed a second time. The non-applicants aggrieved by the order of the S. D. O. filed a revision before the Board on 19. 10. 1955. It was treated as an appeal under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which had come into force on 15th October, 1955 and the case was transferred to the court of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. The learned Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the S. D. O. on the ground that as was clear from the report of the Girdawar Quanungo the order of reinstatement over the land in dispute had not been fully or completely executed and the warrant did not contain any detail of the land in dispute. The Girdawar in execution of the warrant had delivered possession over 53 bighas and 7 biswas of land. It was difficult to make out whether the area of the land given in the report of the Girdawar approximated to 22 bighas Chahi and 115 bighas (Kham) of barani land. The learned Addl. Commissioner directed that possession of the land in dispute be given to the non-applicants. Against this order Kanhaiyalal and others have come up in revision before the Board.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also examined the record. It was contended before us on behalf of the applicants that the learned Additional Commissioner had overlooked the cardinal principle of law that once a decree or order was executed it could not be executed again. It was further, urged that the non-applicants had executed a supurdnama indicating that they had received possession over the land in dispute and they were fully satisfied with the manner in which the order of the Board was executed. A subsequent application for execution by them was absolutely un-called-for and the trial court had rightly rejected it. The learned Additional Commissioner had erroneously held that the order of the Board had not been fully or completely executed. It was alleged that the supurdnama gave a detail of the land in dispute. It not only mentioned khasra numbers of the fields but also specified their area.

(3.) AFTER having examined the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the non-applicants we proceed to consider the decisions which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention that possession as borne out by documentary and oral evidence had in fact changed hands and the non-applicants were, therefore, not entitled to put in a second application for execution of the order of the Board.