ASU RAM Vs. CHAIRMAN CITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against an order of the Chairman, Improvement Committee, Bikaner dated 21. 8. 57 whereby he ordered the auction of the land in dispute. The learned, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that under the rules for the sale and allotment of land in various cities and towns published in the Rajasthan Gazette under Local Self Govt. Deptt. Notification No. F. 1 (k) (116)/lsg/56 date 5. 11. 54 there is no provision for filling an appeal ag3ist an order given by a City Improvement Committee. In support of this the learned counsel drew our attention to a decision of the Board case No. 5/bikaner of 1956 dated 2. 4. 57 Kanaram vs. Ramchandra in which this view was taken by a division bench of the Board. As against this the learned counsel for the appellant referred to 1957, R. R. D. p. 23 Kastoor Chandys. Mst. Jiwni in which the Division Bench held that appeals against the order of the city Improvement Committee lay to the Board. We have examined both the cases referred and the parties. They can be easily distinguished from each other. In R. R. D. 1057, p. 23, the proceedings started under the rules of 1943 promulgated by the former Bikaner State and continued under the same rules and therefore in accordance with the provisions made for appeals in the said rules the Board of Revenue as a successor of the Revenue Appeals board of Former Bikaner State rightly held that it was competent to entertain an appeal. In the other case referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent the proceedings started after the promulgation of the rules of 1954 referred to above and not under the rules of 1943 of Former Bikaner State. In the present case the proceedings were admittedly started in 1956 after the promulgation of the rules of 1954 referred to above and therefore the latter ruling namely Kanaram vs. Ram Chandra is applicable to the facts of the present case. In the alternative the learned counsel for the appellant also urged that this appeal may be treated as a Revision which was competent under sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act as the matter in dispute related to sale of Govt. Land under sec. 81 lead with sec. 103 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. THIS contention is also without any substance. In the first schedule appended to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act a list of judicial matters has been given and proceedings under sec. 88 have not been mentioned therein. THIS means that proceeding under sec. 88 are of a non-judicial nature type. The Board of Revenue under sec. Si can only hear a revision in a case of judical nature or connected with Settlement. As the matter in dispute before us admittedly not of a judicial nature nor-connected with Settlement the Board is not competent even to hear this case as a revision. Accordingly as prayed by the appellant we direct that this appeal be returned to him with necessary endorsement thereon for presentation to such court as may be competent to hear it. The order of stay issued earlier shall stand vacated. .