HARLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against an order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bayana dated 13.1.56 in a proceeding relating to the dismissal of the applicant from the post of Lambardari on account of certain allegations made against him. The learned Govt. Advocate raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this revision on the ground that matters relating to the appointment, removal and dismissal of Lambardars being of a non - judicial nature as given in sec. 23 (2) read with sec. 1 of the Act, a revision under sec. 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act does not lie to the Board. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, conceded that in view of a Full Bench decision of the Board in case No. 133 of 1956 Rewad vs. Bakhtawar, as well as R. R. 1957 p. 79, cases relating to the appointment of Lambardars being a non -judicial matter a revision is not competent to the Revenue Board. As regards the order of dismissal, the learned counsel argued that as it affected the rights of a party it was a judicial matter as defined in sec. 22 (1) of the Act and was covered by item 12 of the Schedule, viz. imposition of fine, penalties, forfeitures and confiscations, and therefore a revision was competent to the Revenue Board. We do not subscribe to this view. In 1956 AIR Rajasthan page 1 0 the Rajasthan High Court* held that "dismissal of a Choudhri is not a legislative function nor can it be said that it is a judicial function. A chowdhary is a sort of agent of the Government for the collection of land revenue for which he gets certain remuneration. Appointments and dismissal of agents of this kind can only be a purely executive function." The case before us is in respect of the dismissal of a Lamberdar which term is synonymous with chowdhri in other parts of the State as both perform the same type of functions and are agents of the Govt. for the purpose of collecting land revenue for which they get some remuneration. Accordingly we hold that the order of dismissal of a Lambardar being a non -judicial matter which does not find place in schedule I of the Act, a revision against such an order is not competent to the Board. The revision application on this ground alone stands rejected.