GUAWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made to us by a Division Bench in the following circumstances. A jagir appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench consisting of Sarvashri R. N. Madhok and Z. S. Jhala on 4. 11. 1963. On 21. 11. 1963 a petition for the review of the appellate order of the Division Bench was filed by Gunwant Singh. The review petition was put up before a Division Bench consisting of the Chairman, Shri S. D. Ujjwal, and Shri R. N. Madhok, Member. It was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that there were two conflicting rulings of this Board regarding the competence of a single Member to hear a petition for review. The earlier decision was in the case of Bachan Singh vs. Bheru, decided by a Division Bench on 27. 3. 1963 (RRD 1963 page 135 ). The facts of this case before the Division Bench were that a second appeal under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was decided by a Division Bench consisting of Sarvashri S. L. Kakkar and R. N. Hawa, Members, on 2. 5. 1961. A petition for review was filed soon after and admitted by the same Bench. However, before the final order was passed on the review petition, Shri S. L. Kakkar ceased to be attached to this Board, and Shri R. N. Hawa sitting singly granted the review. It was held that the order passed by Shri Hawa granting the petition for review was perfectly within jurisdiction. However, in Ram Sahai vs. Brijmohan decided on the 26th December, 1953 (RRD 1964 p. 311), the above view was dissented from and it was held that a petition for the review of an order of a Division Bench would be disposed of only by a Division Bench and not by one Member sitting singly. The learned Members who passed orders in that case did not refer the matter to the Full Bench. In the present case referred to us for opinion, Sarvashri R. N. Madhok and Z. S. Jhala, Members, passed an appellate order tinder the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 on 4. 11. 1963, and the petition for review was presented on 21. 11. 1963. The case came up for hearing for the first time before a Division Bench on 8. 4. 1964 and by that date Shri Z. S. Jhala had ceased to be attached to this Board, while Shri R. N. Madhok continued to function on the Board. The question that we have to decide is whether a petition for review should have been heard by Shri R. N. Madhok sitting singly, if he continues to be attached to the Board and is not otherwise precluded from hearing the review petition.

(2.) SHRI S. N. Pareek, counsel for the applicant Gunwant Singh, has vehemently argued that a petition for the review of an order of a Division Bench can only be heard by a Division Bench and not by a single Member, even though one of the Members who constituted the Division Bench passing the appellate order, has ceased to be attached to the Board. He has taken his stand on sec. 10 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and Rules 8 and 9 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual. For convenience, these provisions are reproduced below - "10. Jurisdiction of Board how exercised.- Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act or by any other law or enactment for the time being in force in the whole or any part of the State and subject to any rules made in that behalf, the jurisdiction of the Board may be exercised - (a) by the Chairman or any other member of the Board, sitting singly, or (b) by a Bench of the Board, consisting of two or more members: Provided that a party aggrieved by a decision of a single member shall have the right to make a special appeal to a bench consisting of two or more members of the Board within one month from the date of the decision of the single member. (2) Subject to any rules made in that behalf, the Chairman may distribute the business of the Board and make such territorial or other divisions of its jurisdiction as he may deem fit. (3) Every order made or act done under sub-sec. (1) or in accordance with the distribution or division made under sub-sec. (2), shall be deemed to be the order or act, as the case may be, of the Board. " "8. Class of cases heard by a Member sitting singly.- The following class of cases may be heard and disposed of by a member sitting singly.- (i) Miscellaneous applications; (ii) applications for setting aside an order of dismissal for default by the Board or an ex parte decision given by the Board; (iii) applications for review of the orders and judgment passed by a single member of the Board; (iv) references; (v) applications for transfer of cases; (vi) revisions when the lower-courts' decree or order is to be modified or reversed; and (vii) appeals under sec. 76 (d) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. " "9. Class of cases heard by a Division Bench.- The following class of cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench - (i) all decrees or orders coming under the consideration of the Board on appeal; (ii) if in any case heard by a single member, any question of law or custom having a force of law or of the construction of any document is referred to a Bench for decision. When a case is heard by a Bench of the Board, the decision of such case shall be in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the members. "

(3.) THIS reference by the Division Bench stands answered accordingly. .