Decided on April 28,1960

MOOLI Appellant
GUDIRAM Respondents


- (1.)This revision has been preferred against an order of the Additional Collector, Alwar, dated 28.9.59 whereby, he has ordered the transfer of proceedings for4he correction of entries pending with the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bharatpur to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Deeg on an application by the opposite party. The opposite party remaining absent despite notice, this application for revision has been heard ex -parte against them.
(2.)The orders of the learned Additional Collector have been questioned not only on merit but also on the basis that he had no powers under sec. 54 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), presumably under which the orders have been passed by him, to hear an application for transfer and dispose of the same. The argument is that under sec. 54 only a Land Records Officer can hear and dispose of such an application, but the S.D.O. Bharatpur being himself an Additional Land Records Officer was not subordinate to the Additional Collector who was himself at the best an Additional Land Records Officer. It has been further urged that under sec. 24(vii) only the Director of Land Records under whose subordination a Land Records Officer, was and for that matter an Additional Land Records Officer also could hear such a transfer application. There is, however, no substance in this contention. Under sec. 20(a)(i) of the Act the State Government is required to appoint a Collector in each district, "who shall also be the Land Records Officer for this district". Under sec. 25(6) of the Act an Additional Collector "shall for all purposes be deemed to be .................Collector..................of the area for which he is appointed". By this analogy an Additional Collector appointed under sec. 20 (d)(i) of the Act shall be as good as the Collector of the district "while exercising any such powers or performing any such duties" of the Collector as may be directed by the State Govt. by virtue of sec. 25(6) of the Act to be exercised or performed by him. Thus for all practical purposes an Additional Collector appointed by the State Government as above would be as good as the Collector of the district even for the purposes of the administration of Land Records, which duties and powers he has been directed to exercise or perform - -it being not disputed - -by the State Government. He would, therefore, be also the Land Records Officer for the district in terms of sec. 20(a)(i) of the Act and not merely an Additional Land Records Officer as contested by the learned counsel for the applicant. If an Additional Land Records Officer is to be appointed to a district it is to be appointed under sec. 20(b)(i), and such Additional Land Records Officer is also to be appointed under sec. 108(i) of the Act for the purpose of conducting survey and record operations unless a permanent Additional Land Records Officer has already been appointed. An Officer would therefore be an Additional Land Records Officer only if he has been appointed specifically as such either under sec. 20(b)(i) or see. 108(i) and not otherwise. A Sub -Divisional Officer delegated with the powers of Land Records Officer in terms of Revenue Department Notification No. 12(183) Rev. (b) 56 of 17.2.56 would therefore not pass out the scope of subordination to the Collector of the district in terms of sec. 24(H) of the Act, and on this very analogy to that of an Additional Collector delegated with the powers of Collector under the terms of sec. 25(6) of the Act.
(3.)Shri Suraj Narain Pareek appearing for the applicant has submitted a number of authorities in support of his contention out of them are AIR 1943 Cal. page 247, AIR 1947 Mad. page 400, AIR 1945 Oudh page 233 and AIR 1945 Sind page 9, have got no relevancy to the present case. In all these cases the question for determination was whether the Officer concerned was a court {subordinate to the authority of the Chief Court or High Court concerned or not, which question was very pertinent to be determined for under sec. 24 C.P.C. only the case pending in subordinate courts could be ordered to be transferred. Under sec. 54 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act there is no question of the transfer of cases from a subordinate court; all it provides is for the transfer of case from the subordinate Officers which Officer should be subordinate to which Officer is provided by the Act itself, when in the cases cited by Shri Pareek it was to be determined on merits in each case whether the Officer, authorised to hear appeal or cases was merely a persona designata or court under the provision or the Civil Procedure Code. Other authority cited by Shri Pareek is AIR 1958 Raj. 91 in which the question was not of transferring a case but that of hearing a revision against the orders of the Director of Local Bodies by the Government to whom the powers of the Government itself had been delegated and sec. 210 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (23 of 1951), authorised the Govt. to hear revision only against the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, Collector or any other officer appointed or authorised by the Government under that Act. In the circumstances the Govt. was not deemed to be possessing the powers of revision over the orders of the Director of Local Bodies who having been delegated with the powers of the Government, was for all practical purposes deemed to become the Government itself so far as those cases were concerned.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.