RAMA Vs. CHHOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Collector, Ajmer dated 16.12.63 whereby he held that the confirmation proceedings under sec. 182 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Record Act, 1959, arising out of an order dated 8.6.59 of the Sub -divisional Officer, Kekri under sec/l02/104 of the Act, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner Rama and the ejectment of the opposite party Chhoga and others should continue before him. It appears that during the course of the proceedings before the learned Collector an objection was raised by the petitioner Rama that after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the proceedings under sec. 182 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Record Act were not maintainable. As stated above, the Collector overruled this objection. Hence, this revision petition. Now, the point for decision before me is, which is the forum where the S. D. Os order dated 8.6.59 can be attacked, after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate this matter, it would be necessary to make a reference to two dates, which are undisputed. Firstly, the date the order of the Sub Divisional Officer which is 8.6.1959. Secondly the date on which the Ajmer Act was repealed and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force in this area, by virtue of sec. 9 read with sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension Act) 1957. This is 15.6.1958. The immediate effect of this enactment was to bring into play the provisions of sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which lays down the procedure for the disposal of the pending cases. This section lays down that all suits, cases, applications, appeals, references and proceedings relating to matters dealt with in this Act and pending before a revenue court on the coming into force of this Act, shall, subject to any specific provisions of this Act to the contrary, be deemed to have been commenced under this Act and shall be tried, heard and determined in the manner prescribed by or under this Act. This is undisputed that on 15.6.58 the above case was pending with the Sub Divisional Officer, Kekri. As the matter related to a subject falling within the scope of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the provisions of sec. 206 were thus automatically attracted on 15.6.58, at the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in this area, and the lis, therefore, should be deemed to have commenced under this Act and should have been tried, heard and determined in the manner prescribed by and under this Act, thereafter. In this connection, two similar cases have been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner. One is Chandmal vs. Choga (RRD 1961 p. 214) The other is Ramrichpal Man Singhka vs. Kasim Nilger (RRD 1963 p. 163). It was held in former case that the ejectment suit decreed on 30.5.59 by the S.D.O. under the provisions of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act should betaken to have commenced under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act from 15.6.58 when the Ajmer Act was repealed and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was extended to Ajmer area. It was observed that ii is the language of the repealing law that should be taken to be the determining factor for deciding whether the pending cases would be affected by it, or would be continued to be governed by the repealed enactment. It was stated that the language of sec. 206(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act leaves no doubt that the suit, though commenced under the provisions of the Ajmer Tenancy and Records Act, should, with the promulgation of the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957 be deemed to have been commenced under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and heard, tried and determined thereunder. A similar view was expressed in Ramrichpals case, following the authority laid down in Chandmals case. It was held that the applications for ejectment lying in the Court of the Sub -divisional Officer, Kekri which had remained pending on 15.6.58, had to be determined in the manner prescribed under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In other words, from 15.6.58 these applications were to take their subsequent course according to the procedure laid down by or in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and an illegality crept in when the Sub Divisional Officer made a reference to the Additional Collector for the confirmation of his own order. In this case, the D. B. set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Collector purporting to act as a court of confirmation under the Ajmer Act. I see no reason why the above authorities should not be followed in the present case also.

(3.) The case of Shri Chandmal was cited before the learned Collector also but he preferred to rely on Hardayal Singh vs. Chagna (RLW 1959 p. 1 Rev. Supplements. This case is easily distinguishable from the case now before me. In Hardayal Singhs case the impungned order of the Collector was passed on 13 -6 58, viz., before the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was promulgated in Ajmer area. But this is not the position in respect of the case now before me. On 15.6.58 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force in this area, this case was pending before the Sub Divisional Officer and no rights had accrued to the parties on that date which would have given a finality to the master in issue. It is, of course, true that the institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are reserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit and that this vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise. In the present case, however, it cannot be held that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has taken away any rights conferred by the Ajmer Act. In fact, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides for the right of two appeals in place of the right of confirmation and revision as provided under the Ajmer Act. Moreover, the change brought about by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act falls in the category of procedural change and as was held in Bhairun vs. Haridas (RLW 1960 p. 357) the Rajasthan Tenancy Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 15.6.58 in the Ajmer area and the pending cases would be governed in accordance with the provisions of the same thereafter. The provisions of sec. 206 are clear and unambiguous and there can be no doubt about the intendment of the Legislature in this case. It appears that the fact that the order of the learned Collector in Hardayals case was passed before the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act did not come to the notice of the learned Collector, Ajmer, as a result of which he has fallen into the error of following that authority, in the present case.