Decided on December 02,1952

JHUNTA Appellant

Cited Judgements :-



Dave, J. - (1.)This is an application by two persons Jhunta and Mahadev under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The facts leading to this application are that on 10-8-1950, opposite party 2 Balu and his sou No. 3 Ram Nath presented an application under Section 7, Rajasthan (protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 before the Anti Ejectment Officer, i.e., the Assistant Collector Sawai Jaipur. It was alleged by them that petitioner 2 in this case Maha-deva was a 'khatedar' tenant of sixteen fields in the village Talpatti, Tehsil Sawai Jaipur, that out of those sixteen 'khasra' Numbers, five fields numbering 77, 127, 129, 289 and 292 were in their sole cultivatory possession as sub-tenants from the 'Smt. Year 1997, while in the remaining eleven fields numbering 31, 290, 291, 294, 296, 297, 300, 426, 441, 442 and 443 they were co-tenants of petitioner 1 Jhunta, that with the assistance of the petitioners Jhunta and Mahadeva, four persons namely Lalu, Mahadeva, Govinda and Kana had dispossessed them from the fields and, therefore, their possession should be re-instated. That application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 15-10-1951 on the ground that it was not a dispute between landlord and tenant but between tenant and tenant inter se and therefore, Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was not applicable to the case. Balu and Ram Nath then went in revision against this order to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Jaipur. On 17-31952, the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition. It was held by that tribunal that from the entries in the land records and the statement of the Patwari, the applicants were found to be in sole possession of the 'khasra' Numbers 77, 127, 129, 289 and 292, and that they were entitled to remain in possession of them. As regards the remaining 'khasra' Numbers, it was decided that Mahadeva who was their 'khatedar' tenant had sub-let them to the applicant Jhunta who had taken Balu as partner in cultivating the land and that since he was neither a cotenant nor a sub-tenant, he could not ask for reinstatement. It is against this decision of the Revenue Board that the present application has been filed by Jhunta and Mahadeva.
(3.)The first contention raised by the petitioners' learned advocate before us is that the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was promulgated with a view to put a check on the growing tendency of land holders to eject or dispossess tenants from their holdings that in the present case the dispute was really one between tenants inter se and not between a land holder and a tenant as found by the Assistant Collector, that the said Ordinance- was therefore not applicable to the present case and the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction by assuming powers which were not given to it under the said Ordinance. It is prayed that a writ of 'certiorari' should be issued and the above mentioned judgment of the Revenue Board dated 17-3-1952 should be quashed.

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