KALYAN SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT DHANI POPERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been received from the Collector, Churu in respect of the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 3. 2. 65 whereby the learned Revenue Appellate Authority transmitted the appeal pending in his court against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churu dated 20. 3. 64 to the Collector on the ground that the jurisdiction under sec. 127 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act vested in the Collector and not in the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Collector has referred to notification No. F. 4 (64)/rev. B/gr. 1/62 dated the 12th June, 1963 conferring the powers under sec. 127 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act upon the Sub-Divisional Officer which nullifies the order passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. It appears that this notification was not within the knowledge of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for both the parties support the reference made by the learned Collector.

(2.) THE impugned order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is not maintainable on another ground also. A perusal of his order shows that he has not applied his mind to the appeal pending before him. By his impugned order, the S. D. O. had rejected the application 021 the ground that it did not lie within his jurisdiction. If the appellate authority agreed with the Sub-Divisonal Officer he should have rejected the appeal. Instead, he merely directed the transmission of the case to the Collector on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter From his order it would appear that he wanted the Collector to entertain the case ab initio. THE learned Sub-divisional Officer, in his order declining to exercise the jurisdiction, has made a reference to the case of State of Rajasthan versus Jaswant Singh (RRD 1962 page 251 ). In this case, the order of the Collector transferring the case to the S. D. O. under sec. 127 was held to be unauthorised as it was found that the notification dated 16. 9. 60 empowered the Sub Divisional Officers to try the case under sec. 181 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act remaining pending at the close of the settlement operations. It was observed that there was no notification under which powers had been delegated to the Sub Divisional Officers to try the cases transferred on the close of the record operations under sec. 127. Such a notification has now been issued as stated by the Collector. Evidently, therefore, this ruling is not applicable and the orders of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the S. D. O. cannot be supported on the ground. It will be for the R. A. A. to examine during the course of the appeal whether or not the matter pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer falls within the purview of sec. 127 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. If the matter is attracted by this provision of law, there should be no question about the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer. If however, on the facts of the case it is found that the matter does not fall within the purview of sec. 127, the aggrieved party should be left to find its redress in accordance with the law. With these observations, I accept this reference, set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and direct that the appeal may be restored to the original number by him and disposed of in accordance with the law after hearing the concerned parties. .