JARAB BAI Vs. DEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against an appellate order of the learned Collector, Bundi, dated 15.10.57.

(2.) Dewa, the opposite party, filed an application under sec. 148 of the Raja -sthan Tenancy Act with the allegation that he cultivated the disputed land as a tenant and was prepared to pay rent in kind as stipulated between the parties but the applicant refused to have the produce apportioned, and instead removed and collected the whole of it on the threshing floor thereby depriving the opposite party of his share of the produce. He, therefore, prayed that proceedings may be taken under sec. 149 of the Act for the division of the produce. This was repelled by the applicant who urged that the land was in her exclusive cultivation and that the opposite party being neither her tenant nor a jota was not entitled to have any share in the produce of the said land, nor rent in any other form was recoverable from him The Tehsildar initiated proceedings under sec. 149 of the Act and appointed the Revenue Inspector, for carrying out the appraisement or division of the produce lying on the threshing floor. The Inspector submitted a report saying that as the had refused to take part in these proceedings, further orders be given in this behalf. Thereupon, the Tehsildar, personally acting under sub -sec. 8 of sec. 149, ordered the parties to have their rights to the produce decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. He also refused to take a bond from the opposite party as there was no such application of the landlord. Being aggrieved from this order, an appeal was filed by Dewa before the learned Collector, Bundi who, however, disagreed with the Tehsildar and held that in view of sub -sec. 3,4,5,6 and 7 of sec. 149, the Tehsildar should have given directions to the revenue Inspector to proceed further in the matter instead of ordering the parties their rights adjudicated. This is the order in revision before us.

(3.) According to S. 148 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act when the rent is payable by a division of the produce or is based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop, there is a dispute about the division, quantity or the value of the produce, an application is to be presented by either,party to that Tehsildar requesting that an officer be deputed to make the division estimate or apportionment. Sec. 149 lays down that on receipt of such application, the Tehsildar shall issue a written notice to the opposite party to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the notice and shall depute an officer by whom such division, estimate or appraisement shall be made. If the opposite party objects that the rent is not payable by division of produce or is not based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop or that no amount is to be paid, such officer shall record the objection but shall proceed as provided in sub -secs. 3,4,5. and 6. The award is to be submitted by such officer with his report under sub -sec. 7 inviting objections against the award. If, at this stage also, any party objects that the rent is not based on estimate or appraisement of the crop or a division of the produce or that the proportion of the produce claimed by the land holder as rent is higher than is really due; the Tehsildar shall not decide such objection but shall direct the parties to get their rights decided by a court of competent jurisdiction as laid down in sub -sec. 8. The Tehsildar may, on the application of a lane -holder, direct the tenant to furnish a bond with or without sureties to pay the rent according to the final decision of the suit within one month of such decision. In present case. Dewa the opposite party who claimed himself to be a tenant of the applicant applied for division of the produce of the land in equal halves alleged to have been cultivated by him alone with the applicant. The applicant denied the status of Dewa as a tenant and also alleged that the produce was entirely hers and Dewa had no share in it In such cases, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party, it was incumbent on the Tehsildar to have directed the Revenue Inspector to record the objection of the applicant,and proceed further in accordance with sub -secs.3,4,5,and 6 of sec. 149 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, instead of straightaway directing the parties to have their rights decided by a competent court as indicated in sub -sec.8. The correct procedure in a proceeding under sec 149 of he Act is that if the opposite party objects that the rent is not payable by division or that no amount is to be paid then the officer appointed by the Tehsildar should record the objections and proceed further with the ap -pointment of an assessor etc., in carrying Court the division of the crop. The said officer shall then make an estimate of the value of the produce,deliver his award and submit the same with his report to the Tehsildar, who will then issue a notice for the second time to the necessary parties to file objection against the said award. If any such objection is filed, then the Tehsildar shall take recourse to the provisions of sub -sec. 8 of sec. 149, and direct the parties to have their rights adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. For, were it not so, it would be almost impossible to arrive at the amount of rent payable by division of the produce in a suit for arrears of rent as envisaged in sec. 150 of the Act. The order of the Tehsildar, therefore, in our opinion, was contrary to the provision of law. Accordingly, we confirm the order given by the collector and direct the Tehsildar to take action in accordance with sub -sees.3, 4, 5 and 6 sec. 149 of the Act. The revision is in the result dismissed.