HARDEO Vs. RAJASTHAN REVENUE BOARD
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-8-9
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 27,1952

HARDEO Appellant
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN REVENUE BOARD Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GOVINDA VS. BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-10-24] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ranawat, J. - (1.)- This is an application of one Hardeo under Art. 226 of the Constitution, of India against the judgment of the Rajasthan Revenue Board dated the 13th March 1951 setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainwa, dated the 20th November 1950 and ordering reinstatement of Onkar and Madho in respect of field No. 301 of the area of 5 bighas and 7 biswas on Pipliwala well in village Gambhiri. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner here that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction under sec. 7 of the Tenants Protection Ordinance, 1949, because no relationship of landlord and tenant had been pleaded by Onkar and Madho when they filed an application for reinstatement in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainwa, on the 5th of September 1950. The case of Onkar and Madho was that they had purchased field No. 301 from Hardeo a few years back and were in possession thereof up to the 5th of September 1950 when they were forcibly dispossessed by the opposite party. They sought the jurisdiction of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer under sec. 7 of the Tenants Protection Ordinance and prayed that they might be reinstated. The opposite party Hardeo in his written statement pleaded that as per application of Onkar and Madho they were not entitled to any relief under the Tenants Protection Ordinance and they should be directed to go to a Civil Court, as they did not come on the basis of tenancy. Hardeo, however, alternately pleaded that he had let that field to Onkar and Madho but he had taken back the possession of the land in the month of Jeth and that the petition was time-barred. A judgment of the Panchayat Board of Bamangaon dated the 4th September 1950 was also produced by Onkar and Madho in support of their claim of the ownership of the land. By that judgment, the claim for rent of Hardeo was disallowed by the Panchayat Board. The Sub-Divisional Officer found in favour of Hardeo that Onkar and Madho were not the tenants of Herdeo. In his judgment, the Sub-Divisional Officer went further and referring to certain Revenue records specified that Onkar and Madho were Jotas. The Board of Revenue in exercise of their powers of revision under sec. 10(2) of the Tenants Protection Ordinance held that a Jota is a sub-tenant and Onkar and Madho being sub-tenants were entitled to protection under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. The Board of Revenue failed to notice the case of Onkar and Madho that they had not sought the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of tenancy but they had come before him on the basis of their title acquired through purchase from Hardeo.
(2.)ONKAR and Madho have failed to appear before us and they have also not filed any reply to this petition of Hardeo.
On behalf of the Rajasthan Revenue Board the learned Government Advocate has filed a reply that the Board acted within its jurisdiction in granting relief to Onkar and Madho in so far as Hardeo had himself admitted them to be his tenants. The learned Government Advocate has also at the! time of hearing contended that it does not lie in the mouth of Hardeo to say now that Onkar and Madho were not his sub-tenants when he had pleaded in the Revenue Courts that they occupied the position of sub-tenants.

The learned Government Advocate has placed the record of the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer before us and we find that the petition of Onkar and Madho dated the 5th September 1950 did not contain any averment regarding their status of sub-tenants. Their case was that they had purchased the land from Hardeo several years back and were in possession on the basis of their title. They approached the Sub-Divisional Officer because they had been forcibly dispossessed by Hardeo on the 5th of September 1950. Onkar and Madho also produced a few witnesses in support of their case who stated that Hardeo had sown til in the disputed land that year. This evidence went against their case that they had been dispossessed on the 5th of September 1950, because kharif is not sown in the month of September but it is sown when the monsoon breaks. However, it is not necessary to go into this question at this stage of the case. The real point which emerges in this application is whether the Revenue Courts were justified in exercising their jurisdiction on the basis of the allegations of Onkar and Madho contained in their petition of the 5th of September 1950. The case of Onkar and Madho had been that they were the owners of the land through purchase and they had produced the judgment of the Panchayat Board in support of their title. As regards the Revenue entries they had pleaded that they had been made in their absence and they were not bound by them. Hardeo, who had contested the case in the Revenue Courts, also took objection to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts alleging that Onkar and Madho had not come on the basis of tenancy. It may be observed that under sec. 7 of the Tenants Protection Ordinance the court of Sub-Divisional Officer could grant relief only when there had existed relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. In the present case, there is no mention as regards tenancy in the application of Onkar and Madho. There was, therefore, no fact in the petition of Onkar and Madho which could give jurisdiction to the Revenue Courts to grant the relief of reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Tenants Protection Ordinance. The Revenue Courts could not have construed the matter on the basis of an alternative plea of Hardeo which had been denied from the very beginning by the petitioners. It is not open to a court to put a different case in the mouth of the petitioner and to grant him relief to which he is not entitled on the case with which he comes to the court. In the present case we find that the Revenue Courts were not entitled to grant any relief to Onkar and Madho as they had come on the basis of title. The court of the Sub-Divisional Officer was not wrong in refusing to grant relief to Onkar and Madho although one of the reasons given in the judgment was not correct. The finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer that Onkar and Madho were jotas of Hardeo was against their pleadings. The Board of Revenue, even though it was not wrong in holding that a jota means a sub-tenant, failed to appreciate the case of Onkar and Madho that they had come on the basis of title and their case was not that of a tenant or a sub-tenant. We are of the opinion that the Rajasthan Revenue Board exercised its jurisdiction in the present case when it had none.

This application is allowed and the order of the Rajasthan Revenue Board dated the 13th March 1951 is set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer would reinstate Hardeo if he has been dispossessed in execution of the order of the Rajasthan Revenue Board. Hardeo would get the cost of this petition from Onkar and Madho, including counsel's fee of Rs. 50/-.



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