PRATHVI SINGH Vs. URJIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this revision may briefly be stated as below : - THE applicant Prathvi Singh Jagirdar of village Chirdani, Tehsil Bilara put up an application before the Collector, Jodhpur, 26. 10. 53 under secs. 78 and 79 of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949, alleging therein that division and appraisement of the standing crop in village was with in the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar but as the atmos-phere of the village was peculiar he was impelled to approach the Collector. On that very day the Collector passed the following order on this application. "forwarded to the Tehsildar Bilara for taking necessary action according to the provisions of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949 in his case. " It appears that the applicant produced this application personally before the Tehsildar Bilara on 3. 11. 1953 who directed him to present a fresh application as the period prescribed in the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act for issue of notice had expired. It may also be observed here that the application presented before the Collector contained no specific names of the tenants who were not willing to carry out division or appraisement. On 16. 12. 53 the applicant put up a fresh application before the Tehsildar wherein allegations were that the tenants included in the attached list (141 tenants were included in this list) were deliberately evading a division of the produce and were carrying away the produce to their homes and hence the prayer in the application was that a division of the produce be carried out under sec. 4 (a) and 4 (b) of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulation Act. THE Tehsildar on that very day appointed Shri Jagannath Singh to carry out the division and appraisement and directed him to submit his report on 21. 1. 1954. Notices were also directed to be issued to the opposite party. Shri Jagannath Singh failed to present his award before the Tehsildar on 21. 1. 1954 and the case had to be adjourned on 21. 1. 54, 27-24954 and 26. 3. 1954 for the purpose. On 31. 3. 1954 the award was produced to which objections were filed by the opposite-party. THE main grounds taken by the opposite party inter alia were that no notice was served upon the applicants under sec. 4 (b); that notices did not give the correct date and time when the officer proposed to carry out the division and appraisement; that no proper proceedings were carried out that no proper record was maintained ; that no assessors were associated with the award; and that the award was prepared in collusion with the Jagirdar. THE Tehsildar after hearing the parties held that the award stood vitiated by the failure of the officer to follow the mandatory provisions of law and hence it deserved to be set aside. Accordingly it was set aside. THE applicant went up in appeal against this order of the Tehsildar but met with no success. Hence this revision.

(2.) AS the applicant was unrepresented by any counsel before us we have gone through the entire record carefully ourselves. The first and foremost question that comes up for determination in this case is as to whether "the award" presented by Shri Jagannath Singh was rightly set aside by the Tehsildar or not. In this connection the following points deserve special consideration : - (1) The applicant's application dated 16. 12. 53 upon which the proceedings commenced before the Tehsildar Bilara contained no request whatsoever for an estimate or appraisement of the standing crop. On the contrary it was clearly stated therein that the tenants were not carrying out the division of the produce and the only prayer contained therein was for ordering the same, i. e. division of the produce. (2) Sec. 4 (a) of the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act, 1953 lays down that when the rent is payable by a division of the produce or is based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop and if the tenant neglects to attend at the proper time the Tehsildar may on an application of the land-holder proceed to make or depute an officer to make the estimate or appraisement. The term 'proper time' is defined to mean time which by custom or practice in a local area is deemed to be the time for appraisement of the standing crop. Sec. 78 of the Marwar Tenancy Act also contains a similar provision and in addition specifies the latest dates for Kunta and Lata in respect of both the crops. For kharif crop the last date for Kunta is given 5th November, or Magsar Badi. 30, whichever of the two comes last. AS the present case relates to Kunta of Kharif crop only it is not necessary to refer to other dates given in this section. The present application was presented before the Tehsildar on 16. 12. 1953. It has been admitted by the applicant before us that the Kharif harvest was not standing in the fields at that time. Evidently there could have been no rase for carrying out an appraisement of the standing crop. AS pointed out above, the applicant apparently in consciousness of the fact, claimed division of the produce only. Thus there was no time, or occasion for ordering an appraisement of the standing crop nor had the applicant ever prayed for the same. (3) The procedure adopted by Shri Jagannath Singh in the case was grossly irregular and open to serious objections. Notices issued under the signatures of the Tehsildar, the proper service of which is a point of controversy between the parties, stated that the proceedings would be carried out by Shri Jagannath Singh in the village on 22. 12. 1953. Shri Jagannath Singh did not maintain any record of Lis proceedings tut he was examined by the Tehsildar on 13. 5. 1954 and therein he stated that he reached the village on 17. 12. 1953. On what dates and in what manner he carried out the proceedings is not at all clear from the record. AS laid down in sec. 4 (b) of the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act. 1953. Shri Jagannath Singh was bound to ascertain from the opposite-party if they had any objection on the point of the rent being payable by division of the produce or being based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop and he was bound to record any objections that might have been raised before him. Similarly he was bound to call on both the parties to appoint a resident of the neighbourhood as an assessor to assist in the division of the produce or in estimate or appraisement of the crop. The record should show as to whether he complied with this provision and whether any of the party so failed to attend or refused to appoint an assessor. He was also bound to record the opinions of the assessors. In fact the so-called award produced by him before the Tehsildar gives a list of 107 tenants showing the estimated produce of each field of each tenant, its one-sixth portion and its fash value. Across the last item of this list on the last page occurs a note signed by some persons to the effect that the appraisement was done in their presence and was read over and admitted to be correct by them. This attestation is also in the writing of Shri Jagannath Singh. AS stated above the original list supplied by the Jagirdar contained 141 names and in this list only 107 tenants have been dealt with. No explanation has been offered for the names that are not to be found in the award. The award runs into 66 pages but nowhere any date or time is mentioned. Looking to the volume of work load involved in this award it can be easily imagined that the proceedings must have been spread over a number of days. Yet Shri Jagannath Singh has taken special care not to reveal this aspect and to avoid all references to dates conveniently. The award based on such questionable proceedings can deserve no other fate but out right rejection.