HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, dated 30.7.1954 upholding the order of the Tehsildar Ramgarh in a case relating to allotment of house site in village Kankroli under Jaipur Revenue Standing Order No. 7,
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. WE fell no hesitation in observing that the order of the Additional Collector Jaipur is clearly untenable as it does not take into consideration the relevant provisions of law on the subject. Bhairunlal, opposite-party, applied for the sale of the land in dispute on the ground that his kutcha house was existing over it and the same be given to him on payment of nazrana under rule 12 of the aforesaid standing order. It was, however, found that no kutcha house stood the eon and hence the land was decided to be put to public auction. The Tehsildar eventually conduced the auction proceedings and sanctioned the same, vide his order dated 5.6.1953. It, however, did not occur to him that under rule 19 of the aforesaid order he had not authority to sanction the sale of the land as only the Nazim was authorised to do so in cases upto 100 Sq. Yds. The Tehsildar is authorised to deal with cases falling under rule 12 only. It is still more surprising that the learned Additional Collector also ignored this provision of law. As the order of the Tehsildar is clearly ultra vires we would allow this revision, set aside the order of the lawyer courts and remand the case to the Assistant Collector Amber for being proceeded further in accordance with law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.