BAL SINGH Vs. SPECIAL BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Bal Singh under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Special Board of Revenue in a matter relating to certain land in the former State of Alwar.

(2.) WE may briefly narrate the facts which have led to this application. The applicants were Jagirdars in village Patan-ka-Bas. Ramchandar and Rampal (now dead and represented by his sons Budha and Shukla) were the tenants of the applicants. The applicants gave notice to them under sec. 180 of the Alwar State Revenue Code for ejectment in 1943. Thereupon, Rampal and Ramchandar filed a suit under sec. 181 of the same Code to contest their liability to ejectment. Their case was that they were not liable to ejectment because they became occupancy tenants as provided under sec. 135 of the Code. The trial court held that sec. 135 did not apply and Ramchandar and Rampal were liable to ejectment. There was then an appeal by Ramchandar and Rampal which was allowed and their suit contesting their liability to ejectment was decreed. Then there was a second appeal by the present applicants to the Revenue Minister. That second appeal was allowed and the decree of the Collector was set aside and the suit was dismissed It appears that Rampal and Ramchandar were dispossessed after this decree of the Revenue Minister. Rampal and Ramchandar filed an appeal before the Executive Council of the former State of Alwar in February, 1945. That appeal was not disposed of till the former State of Alwar merged into the Matsya Union. It appears that there was no provision in the Matsya Union for the disposal of such appeals and nothing was done with respect to this appeal Then came the merger of the Matsya Union in the present State of Rajas than in 1949. Eventually, the appeal was put up for hearing before the Special Board of Revenue created under the Rajasthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) Ordinance (No. XL of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The learned members of the Board were of the view that no appeal lay to the Executive Council; but as a revision lay, they treated the appeal as a revision. They came to the conclusion that the tenants had acquired occupancy rights under sec. 135 of the Alwar Revenue Code and therefore, could not be ejected. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the order of the Revenue Minister of the former State of Alwar set aside. The present application is against this order of the Special Board of Revenue.