PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision applications shall be disposed of by a single judgment as a common point of law is involved in them. It appears that the Tehsildar on the report of the Patwari to the effect that Partap Singh and Jawan Singh had unlawfully taken possession of Govt. land and had also constructed a well thereon without permission, issued a notice to both of them under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The notice was contested by the applicant on several grounds The Tehsildar however ruled out the objection and directed the ejectment of both the applicants from the land in question under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. An appeal was filed by both the applicants before the learned Addl. Collector. The point raised therein was that the Tehsildar was not competent to order ejectment of the applicant from the Govt. land over which the alleged possession was said to have taken place. It was pointed out that in accordance with the provisions of sec. 217 (2) of the Raj. Tenancy Act the Tehsildar who initiated these proceedings against a trespasser on Govt. land should have sent the case to the Assistant Collector for disposal according to law, instead of ordering ejectment himself. This contention seems to have prevailed with the learned Addl. Collector but he directed that these proceedings may be considered as having commenced under sec. 19 of the Land Revenue Act which had come into force on the date when the appeal was heard by him. It is against this order that these two revisions have been filed before us. The same arguments which were advanced before the Addl. Collector about the lack of jurisdiction of the Tehsildar were put before us. We have examined the provisions of sec. 183 as well as 217 (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Under sec. 183 if any Govt. land is unlawfully encroached upon by a person the Tehsildar is competent to issue a notice to the defaulter that he is liable to ejectment. Sec. 217 (2) of the Act lays down that if such proceedings are initiated by or against the State Govt. the Tehsildar should send the case to the Asstt. Collector who will dispose it of finally. It is thus clear that in a case of encroachment on Govt. land a Tehsildar, himself being a land holder has no jurisdiction to order ejectment of a trespasser. He should send the proceedings to the Asst. Collector for final orders. An alternative procedure has also now been provided under sec. 91 of the land Revenue Act. But surely these proceeding which started under sec. 183 before the land Revenue Act came into force cannot be deemed to have commenced under sec. 91 of the land Revenue Act. The order of the Addl. Collector is thus manifestly wrong. Accordingly we set aside his order as well as that of the Tehsildar and direct that the case should now be heard and decided by the Asstt. Collector under the provisions of sec. 217 (2) of the Raj Tenancy Act. .