DHAN SINGH Vs. DURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances which give rise to this revision may briefly be stated as below

(2.) On 4.1.46, Kalyan Singh Patwari of Qasba Nagar (Bharatpur Distt.) put up a report before the Tehsildar to the effect that Mst. Chhoti having a share in khewat Nos. 97, 102, 103, 108 and 115, died without leaving behind any heirs entitled to succeed. Notices were issued and objection were raised by Dhani Ram etc. claiming relationship with the deceased. The Tehsildar, by his report dated 14.11.46 forwarded papers to the Collector, Deeg, of the former Bharatpur State with the recommendation that the land in dispute was liable to he escheated to the State Government for failure of heirs. The case went up before the Revenue Minister of former Bharatpur State who returned back the case to the Collector Deeg for further enquiry. It appears that the case went up a second time before the Revenue Minister of the former Bharatpur State on 1.7.47 and the Collector, Bharatpur was directed to trace out certain case files and then forward the same to the Collector, Deeg. For reasons that cannot be gathered from this record, the file in this case remained consigned for about 7 years in the record room when it was accidentally recovered by a clerk on 15.6.54 when the record was being cleansed. Thereafter the proceedings were started again and as a reasult of the same, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Deeg by his order dated 10.5.57 sanctioned mutation of the proprietary rights of the heirs of the deceased Mst. Chhoti in favour of Durga. Sukha and Dhani Ram as recommended by the Tehsil, Nagar. When the record was received back by the Tehsildar, he directed the Circle Inspector to put up a mutation. On 6.6.57 Durga Prasad put up an application before the Tehsildar praying that the Tehsil while managing the land had been leasing it out to tenants on a year to year basis and as the period of those leases had expired the tenants be ejected therefrom and he be put up in possession of the same. On getting this application, the Tehsildar directed the Office to put up a report. The office reported that during Kham management of the land yearly leases were granted to the tenants by the Tehsil and as their period had expired, Durga Prasad was entitled to eject them. On that very date, the Tehsildar forwarded the application to the Sub -Divisional Officer recommending that Durga Prasad be put up in possession after ejecting the tenants. On the following day, i.e. 7.6.57, the Sub -Divisonal Officer returned the record with the remarks that when the lawarisi proceedings had been dropped and the land had been given to the applicant, possession should also be delivered to him. The record reached the Tehsildar, Nagar, on that very day. The girdawar was directed to put the applicant in possession. On 14.6.57 Durga Prasad obtained the possession over the land and executed a Dakhalnama. On 18.6.57 Shanker, Khyali, Dhan Singh and Isar appeared before the Sub -Divisional Officer and filed separate applications before him stating therein that they had been cultivating different, Khasra numbers since a number of years in the land in dispute, that they had no other land to cultivate and hence the order passed against them on 7.6.57 deserved vacation. The Sub -Divisional Officer, on receipt of these applications, immediately directed a stay of his order and informed the parties to appear before him on 26.6.57. The parties did appear on the date fixed but as they wanted an adjournment it was granted to them. On 4.7.57, after hearing the parties the Sub Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the manner in which Shanker etc. were ejected was wrong, that Durga Prasad etc. should have sought redress in a proper manner in accordance with the law and that Shanker etc. should be put back in possession of the land. It appears that in the meanwhile, Durga Prasad had put some seeds in the fields and the Sub -Divisional Officer directed that adequate compensation in that behalf be given to Durga Prasad by the tehsil. Durga Prasad went up in appeal against this order before the learned Additional Collector, Bharatpur, who by his order dated 11.11.57 allowed the same and ordered that Durga Prasad should be re -instated in the possession of the land in dispute. The learned Additional Collector was of the opinion that as possession had been transferred in a regular manner, it could not be objected to by the tenants. Hence this revision before us by Dhan Singh, Shanker and others.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record as well. It is an admitted fact that upon the demise of Mst. Chhoti, the land was taken in Kham management by the Tehsil under sec. 124 of the former Bharatpur State Revenue Code. During the course of this management, year to year leases were granted by the Tehsil. When the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force on 15.10.55, the land in dispute was in possession of the tenants. Durga Prasad and others were held to be entitled to succeed the deceased Mst. Chhoti by the S.D.O. Deeg on 10.5.57. They thereby succeeded to the estate of Mst. Chhoti and became the estate -holders. They can, therefore, seek ejectment of the tenants only in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As laid down in sec. 161 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, no tenant can be ejected from his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, after the passing of this Act. The learned counsel for the opposite party has frankly conceded the applicability of this provision to the present case and its implications as well. His contention is that secs. 180 and 183 deal with the ejectment and the application presented by Durga Prasad before the Teh -sildar on 6.6.57 may be deemed to have been presented under these sections We have pointed out above the contents of the application and the manner in which it was disposed of by the lower courts. There is no reference in this application to any provision of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The application was decided by the S.D.O. in utter disregard of the prescribed procedure and requirements of natural justice. The order was passed at the back of the party likely to be affected by that order and with such post -haste as is generally not found in cases of this nature. It would not be wrong to observe that within a period of almost 24 hours of the presentation of the application the office of the Tehsil made a report on it, the Tehsildar wrote out his order and forwarded the papers to the S.D.O., the S.D.O. passed his order and the case was received back in the Tehsil. All this may have happened in a regular manner but the fact remains that during all these proceedings the tenants who were to be ejected from the land were ignored completely. No steps were taken to allow them an opportunity to put up their case either before the Tehsildar or before the S.D.O. It appears that the Sub -Divisional Officer, on being approached by the tenants, realised the omission and directed the Tehsil to stay his previous order. It was then that he heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the manner in which the tenants were directed to be ejected on 7.6.57 had no sanction in the eye of law. Thus it is apparent that the application cannot be regarded as having been decided either under sec. 180 or under sec. 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that they had acquired the status of the Khatedar tenants on the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. We refrain from expressing any opinion upon this point as it is open to the applicants to seek declaration of their rights under sec. 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Similarly, nothing stated in this judgment would prejudice the right of the opposite party to seek ejectment of the applicants in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. They can resort to such sections of the Act as they may be advised to. The decision of this case is confined to the fact that the manner in which the applicants have been ejected is illegal and without any sanction of law. We, therefore, allow this revision set aside the order of the learned Addl. Collector dated 11.11.57 and restore that of the S.D.O. dated 4.7.5 7. It has been stated before us that some crops are standing upon the land in dispute at present. The directive contained in the order of the S.D.O. on the point shall govern this standing harvest as well.