NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against an order of the Tehsildar Sanganer dated 20.8.55 which on being translated into English runs as below : - -

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that under sec. 49 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945 which had come into force when these proceedings were a foot in the lower courts the tehsildar was competent only to impose a fine upto Rs. 50/ - on persons who cut trees in contravention of the said Act. It is urged that there is no provision of law under which an order for the recovery of the price of such trees could be given. It was further argued that in the absence of any provision of law if a court gives an order it is incapable of being executed and the recovery cannot be made from the applicants even if the matter was not challenged in appeal or revision at the proper time. It is also contested that the learned Nazim who finally approved the order of the Tehsildar did not even give an opportunity to hear applicants. In the light of this discussion it was urged that the order given by the learned Nazim which is being executed against the applicants being a nullity inasmuch as it directed the recovery of the price of trees for which no provision of law existed in the Jaipur Tenancy Act. they could agitate the matter before the tehsildar who was executing this order of Nazim. In support of this reliance was placed on A.I.R. 1957 p. 131 (Rajasthan)* in which the following observations were made : - -

(3.) In the light of the above discussions we arrive at the conclusion that as the order given by the Nazim was clearly in contravention of the provisions of law in force on the date when it was given, it is incapable of being executed tin so far as the recovery of the price of trees is concerned, even if no appeal or revision was filed by the apli -cans to set it aside. They have every right to challenge the validity during the execution proceedings against them. Taking this aspect of the matter into consideration the order for recovery of price of trees is illegal. It is therefore set aside and the application allowed.