RANGLAL Vs. MORMUKAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal under Sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against the order dated 3. 12. 1962 passed by Shri R. N. Hawa, Member accepting the review petition No. 2/sawai Madhopur/1960 against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 9. 1. 1960 passed by the D. B. consisting of Shri Kanwar Bahadur and Shri R. N. Hawa.

(2.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the single Member had no jurisdiction to review an order passed by the D. B. As stated above, the order dated 9. 1. 1960 was passed by Shri Kanwar Bahadur and Shri R. N. Hawa. THE review filed against the order of the Board dated 9. 1. 1960 was heard and disposed of by Shri Hawa as by that time Shri Kanwar Bahadur had retired. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the larger Bench decision of the Board of Revenue in Gunwant Singh vs. THE State (2/63/udaipur) decided on 11. 5. 66. It was held therein that if the order sought to be reviewed has been passed by two Members and both of them continue to be attached to the Board and/or are not precluded by reason of absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application from hearing the review petition, they alone and no other Member or Members shall hear and decide the review petition. If one of the two Members ceases to be attached to the Board, and the other Member continues to be attached to the Board and/or is not precluded for a period of six months next after the application for review from hearing it, he alone will be competent to hear and pass orders on the application for review. This would also be the position if the order sought to be reviewed has been passed by more than two Members, that is to say, the remaining Member or Members alone would be competent to dispose of the application for review if they are not precluded from hearing it for a period of six months next after the application for review by absence or other cause. It is not necessary that the remaining Member or Members must hear and decide the application for review within a period of six months next after the application has been made. THE only condition to be satisfied is that the remaining Member or Members are not precluded from hearing an application for review by absence or other cause for a period of six months after the application for review has been presented. Under the circumstances, we find no substance in this contention and hereby reject the same.