BHEMJI Vs. KAMALJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Tehsildar Aspur allotted certain agricultural land to Shri Kamalji, non -petitioner. On an application made by Shri Bhemji, petitioner, the order of allotment was reviewed by the Tehsildar who found that the land allotted had already been entered in the settlement record in the name of the petitioner. The allotment was, accordingly, cancelled. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the non - petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, who held that the Tehsildar had inherent power to review his order u/sec. 86(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and rejected the appeal.

(2.) A second appeal was filed against this order before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who found that the order cancelling the previous allotment had been made without issuing a notice to the non -petitioner allottee to appear and it could not, therefore, be called to be a legal order as the opposite party was not given an opportunity of being heard. It was also found by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that an appeal had been earlier filed against the original allotment order before the Collector who had dismissed the same as it was time barred. It was held by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that once an order had been made in appeal by an appellate court, it was only the appellate court which could review the appellate order and the original court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order. Thus, it came to the conclusion that the Tehsildar had no power to review his own order which had been upheld in appeal. It was, further, found by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that the original order of allotment had been made on 16 -8 -61 while the application for review which forms the basis of the present revision petition was made on 15 -2 -62. It was thus, clearly, time barred. It was, also, noted that no application was made giving sufficient reasons for presenting the application after the lapse of the prescribed time and, as such, it could not be considered as having been filed within time. Under the circumstances, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority refused to look into the merits of the case and rejected the appeal for the reasons stated above. The present revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid order.

(3.) It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that, under the rules, only unoccupied land could be allotted, but as was held by the learned Tehsildar in his order dated 13 -6 -62, whereby he cancelled the allotment, the land allotted was in the possession of the petitioner, who also held the settlement Parcha in respect of the land and that the allotment had been made as a result of a fraud having been perpetrated by the Patwari in violation of the rules laid down in this respect.