SHYAMLAL Vs. BIPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following facts give rise to this revision. Bipati moved an application before the Tehsildar, Bharatpur on 13.3.57 alleging therein that he was the tenant of the land in dispute of a long standing crop (rabi Svt. 2013) was also sown by him, that the village patwari bad made a wrong entry last year in respect of this land and that the same was going to be repeated this year as well. The Tehsildar passed the following order on this application : - - "If there is a Tanaza, no partal should be entered and the case be put up before me on the site." It appears that the Tehsildar proceeded to the spot on 3.4.57 and made enquiries to the cultivation of the land in dispute. Shyam Lal who is the applicant before us admitted that Bipti was cultivating the land in dispute but only l/4th share of it. In the gust girdawari, the patwari had entered the word Badastoor on 3.4.57. It, however, appears from the record that at this stage the case was forwarded to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bharatpur along with some other case. The Sub -Divisional Officer returned this case with the remarks that, after a full enquiry, the report should be sent. The evidence of the parties was recorded on 23.5.57 and on 25.5.57 the Tehsildar requested the Sub -Divisional Officer, to return to him his previous report in the matter. Thereafter on 7.6.57, the Tehsildar wrote out his report afresh recommend -ingthat the entry in rabi Svt. 2013 should be amended as requested by Bipti. The Sub Divisional Officer returned the papers with the observation that he agreed with the report of the Tehsildar and that the aggrieved person would have a right to bring a regular action. The Tehsildar, thereafter, directed the Land Records Inspector and the patwari to amend the entry accordingly. Shyamlal went up in appeal before the Additional Collector, Bharatpur, who rejected the same on the ground that as the matter was decided summarily and as the matter could be agitated in a superior court, interference was not called for. Shyamlal has come up in revision against this appellate order. As the opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice this revision was heard ex parte.

(2.) The learned Additional Collector has not referred to any law in support of the line of reasoning adopted by him. It may, however, be presumed that he had in his mind the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 dealing with the duties of the revenue officers. Part IV of these rules enumerates the main duties of Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildars and one of them is the test of Inspector of Land Records work (Rule 348). This test should not be confused with a dispute raised by one party against another regarding an entry made in the khasra by the patwari. Such a dispute would be covered by sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. As regards the test, a detailed procedure has been prescribed. This test is to be conducted while the Tehsildar is on tour and he should maintain a note -book in which he will record day to day notes of his inspection. The Tehsildar primarily required to test the work done by the patwari as it is the duty of the Inspector. The object of the Teh -sildars test is to see that the Inspector is discharging his duties properly and that records are being prepared accurately. As soon as the inspection is over, the Tehsildar is to draw up a report indicating record -wise general defects and procedures, bad work and neglect of duties and defects in detail. The report should also give definite findings whether the Inspector has made honest efforts to bring bad work to light and whether he has dealt with it promptly and justly when discovered (RR. 349 to 353). If any correction is observed by the Tehsildar during the course of this test work, it would evidently be the decision of a revenue officer taken summarily on the spot in the discharge of his functions regarding proper maintenance of land records. But where an individual challenges the validity of a particular entry made by the village patwari and where the Tehsildar acts as a revenue court by recording the evidence at the Tehsil Headquarter and draws up his finding on the basis of the evidence, it cannot be held that a decision which is the result of this procedure is included within the scope of the test work. It is evidently the decision of a dispute regarding an entry in the annual papers which has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Sub -Divisional Officer accepted the findings of the Tehsildar but refused to examine them on the ground that the matter could be taken up in a superior court. Evidently the Sub -Divisional Officer did not apply his mind to the facts of the case, nor did he arrive at his findings on any evidence recorded by him. In fact no evidence at all was recorded by the S. D. O. in the case. The decision of the lower courts, therefore, are untenable, for want of proper procedure. We allow this revision, set aside the orders of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bharatpur with the direction that he should try and decide it afresh in the light of the observations made above.