PARTA Vs. BHURA SINGHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an appellate order of the Collector Alwar dated 24. 6. 1955, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The material facts of the case, which may be gathered from the sketchy notes on this file (the original file in which the Tehsildar held proceedings under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the said. Art having disappeared) may briefly be stated as follows. In the absence of the original file it may safely be assumed that the proceedings which were initiated by the Tehsildar Laxmangarh under sec. 4 of the said Act on his own motion terminated in an order on about 30. 12. 1952 fixing cash rents in village Nizam Nagar on the basis of assessed revenue rates in the adjoining settled villages for similar soil classes A copy of this order as is clear from an entry in the Roznanmcha Waqiyati of the Patwari halqa was sent to him so that he might announce the rates so fixed in the village. There is nothing in the entry which would indicate whether a copy of the order was posted at a conspicuous place in the Tehsil headquarters and village Panchayatghar. There is no material on the file which is before us, which would point to the conclusion whether or not the village possesses a Panchayatghar at which a copy of the order could be posted. In the absence of any material to the contrary we can safely act on the assumption that the rates so fixed were announced in the village. THIS assumption is warranted by the circumstance that in the entry in the Roznamcha Waqiyati of the Patwari which is signed by some of the applicants, it is clearly set out that the necessary announce-ment was made in the village on or about 17. 1. 1953. The applicants imagined that their rent rates had been considerably raised by the Tehsildar without giving them a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the enhancement. They felt aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar and lodged an appeal before the Collector on 26. 3. 1953. The appeal was returned to them by the learned Collector under an erroneous conception of law so that they might make good the deficiency in court fee as well as attest certain amendments which had be subsequently made in the appeal and appear to be in the nature of interpolations The appeal was again filed before the learned Collector on 24. 4. 1953 after complying with these terms. It was contended before the learned Collector on behalf of the Jagirdar whose village was under the management of the Court of Wards that the appeal should be dismissed on, and a preliminary, ground that it had been filed beyond the period of 30 days prescribed in sec. 4 of the said Act. The learned Collector after considering the point whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act came to the conclusion that the said provision of law did not apply to the appeal, which had been clearly filed beyond the period of limitation. He, therefore, rejected it, hence the revision before the Board by the applicants.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the applicants at considerable length as the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the Court of Wards WE have also examined such material as was available to us and as could be garnered from a few loose papers which after having been arranged haphazardly were put before us in order to take place of the original file that had apparently gone astray. A preliminary objection was raised before us by the learned counsel for the Court of Wards that the application in revision not competent as there was no statutory provision in that behalf. The inherent powers of the court could not be invoked in interfering in revision with the appellate order of the learned Collector which, as provided in sec. 4 of the said Act, was final and could not be called in question.