RAMDEO Vs. GANGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision wrongly styled as an appeal against an appellate order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 21. 7. 56 arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) ONE Lala sold a portion of his Pattedari land to Ramdeo, the applicant, by means of a registered sale deed dated 9. 3. 49 for a consideration of Rs. 260/ -. Gangaram, the opposite party brought this fact to the notice of the Nazim (S. D. O.), Phulera by filing an application purporting to be under sec. 14 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act in which he stated that the said alienation made by Lala to Ramdeo a non-agriculturist was contrary to the provisions of sec. 11 (2) a (i) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945 and prayed that the said sale deed be cancelled, Thereupon, the S. D. O. , after enquiry, allowed the application and ordered the applicant to return the land to Lala and also directed him to pay back the sale amount to Ramdeo. An appeal was filed against this order of the Assistant Collector by Ramdeo, the applicant, before the Collector who upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. A second appeal was filed before the Learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, who observed that Gangaram initiated these proceedings presumably under sub sec. (1) of sec. 14 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945, according to which the Nazim (S. D. Q.) was authorised only to revise and alter the terms of the alienation so as to bring it into accordance with such form permitted by or under the said Act as the alienee appeared to be equitable entitled to claim. He also further observed that the Nazim was competent to alter the terms of the alienation and convert it into a usufructuary mortgage in the manner laid down in sec. 11 (2) (b) (i) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act for a period not exceeding 20 years with the direction that expiry of the said term the land shall be re-delivered to Lala free of encumbrance. The learned Additional Commissioner also pointed out that the learned Nazim (S. D. O.) could also initiate and pass an order for ejectment of the vendor and vendee under sec. 83 of the Jaipur. Tenancy Act. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and ordered that the decision given by the lower court be set aside and the case be sent back to it with the direction to hear the parties again and give a fresh decision in the light of the observations made by the learned Additional Commissioner. Accordingly the learned S. D. O. heard the parties. He observed that the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945 had since been repealed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 under which there was no restriction on the sale of tenancies to non-agriculturists and therefore, the question of revision or alternation of the terms of alienation did not arise. Accordingly, he dismissed the application of Gangaram. Being aggrieved from this order, Gangaram went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The main ground taken in the memorandum of appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner was that as the proceedings had commenced under the Jaipur Tenancy Act and the same were pending long before the passing of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the provisions of the former on the subject will apply as the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had no retrospective effect to negative a vested right. It was also pointed out that the repeal of the Jaipur Tenancy Act did not affect any pending cases and the trial court erroneously interpreted the provisions of sec. 206 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which is not at all applicable to the facts of the case. The learned Additional Commissioner also observed that as in the classifications of tenants under the Jaipur Tenancy Act a Pattedar tenant had acquired special rights and liabilities, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in which there is no mention of a Pattedar tenant among the classes of tenants, its provisions shall not be applicable to the present case. It was also pointed out that as a Pattedar tenant had a different status from that of a Khatedar tenant and had acquired certain rights which the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by repealing the Jaipur Tenancy Act and had not taken away either by express provisions of law or by implication, the case was triable under sec. 14 (1) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and vacated the order given by the learned S. D O. and remanded the case to him with the direction to dispose it of in accordance with the provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act.