HAZARI Vs. GANGASAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions have been filed against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 28-5-68, whereby the R. A. A. accepted the appeal of non-applicant against the order of the Addl Collector, Jaipur and referred the case to the trial court for undertaking mutation proceeding in accordance with the provisions of law on the ground that the non-applicant (his father) had not been given an opportunity of being heard when the mutation was decided by the Tehsildar u/s 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

(2.) I have perused the order of the Tehsildar in the mutation proceedings and as the narration of these orders shows no opportunity appears to have been given to the father of the non-applicant who was alive at the time of the attestation of mutation entries. As has been held in several cases it is an essential pre-condition that the person from whose name mutation of entries is being made must be heard and failure to do so is fatal in mutation proceedings. (See Kishanlal vs. Dalla RRD 1963 page 350 ). In this view of the matter, I see no fault with the impugned orders and find no substance in these revision petitions.