HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Ramnath Acharya, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Amadi, District Udaipur and arises out of the order passed in second appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 28-10-63.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the land in dispute was admittedly a 'bilanam Jagir' land and recorded as such in the settlement operations conducted in the year 1947. In 1951 it appears that the Jagirdar of that land sold some part of it through pattas to the respondent Shankerlal and Bhanwarlal. In 1958 an order passed by the Settlement Department on 8-8-47 for entering the Bilanam land into pasture land was sought to be incorporated or executed. Entry to this effect was made in the jamabandi treating the land in question as the pasture land. As these two respondents had already occupied this land as a result of the patta issued by the Jagirdar, the Tehsildar initiated proceedings u/s 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to eject and finally passed order for their ejectment. This order was confirmed by the Addl. Collector in appeal but by the impugned order dated 8-10-63 the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur in second appeal reversed the order of the two subordinate courts holding that the respondents who were sought to be ejected were bona fide purchasers for value of the land in dispute as tenants and they were not trespassers and as such could not be ejected. It may be noted that this land only got resumed in 1959. It is against this order that these two revision petitions have been preferred by Ramnath against the two separate orders passed in appeal against Bhanwarlal and Shankerlal.
Two preliminary objections were raised by the counsel on behalf of the opposite party. Firstly that this revision was time barred as it was filed on 27-4-64 against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 23-10-63. This objection of the counsel for the opposite party has no substance as the law of limitation has no application on the matters of hearing revision. The second objection was that Ramnath was not a party before the lower court and as such had no locus standi. The explanation furnished by the counsel for the applicant was that the land in dispute was a pasture land and entrusted to the Gram Panchayat of Amadi of which Ramnath was intersted in the prosecution of the case. This transfer took place in the year 1963 while the dispute was pending. There is some substance in this reply given by the counsel for the petitioner. Although there is nothing on the record to show that the Panchayat was ever entrusted with the management of this pasture land and as such the Sarpanch being the manager was interested in the result of this case. In any case in revision the question of impropriety and illegality of the orders of the subordinate courts are generally questioned and it is still open for the revising courts to exercise their suo-moto powers. The application of Ramnath could be considered to draw the attention of this Board to exercise the powers of suo-moto. Therefore, for these reasons the preliminary objection of the counsel for the opposite party cannot be sustained and I propose to hear this revision petition on its merits.
These are two revision petitions in which common point of law has been raised and, therefore, a single order disposes of both these revision petitions. It was the contention of the counsel for the applicant that this pasture land was created in 1947 at the time of the survey of this Jagir village according to Kanoon Bandobast Mewar of 1-4-1937. Section 40 of this Kanoon empowers the Settlement Commissioner to create pasture land in the Jagir villages. In pursuance of the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner this pasture land was created only in 1948 in this 'bilanam Land'. It was for this reason that the Jagirdar was not competent to transfer the land to the opposite party by way of pattas as no khate-dari rights could be created in a pasture land. The repply of the counsel for the respondents was that it any be clearly understood that the Jagirdar was the owner of the land till the date of its resumption in the year 1959. In that period he was free to create tenancies in the land by issue of pattas or such other means. The Jagirdar issued these pattas for the land in dispute in the year 1951. He produced the original pattas for inspection. The pasture land was only created, if at all, in the year 1958 by simply endorsing a note on the land in question. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the record. The land was Jagir where the disputed land was located. It was recorded as 'bilanam land oat of which the Jagirdar transferred suit land in the tenancy of the respondents by regular pattas in 1951. The land was purchased by the respondent in good faith and for valuable consideration. It was long after this transaction of purchase that this 'bilanam' land was created as Charnot in 1958. The subsequent change in the character of the land could not have in any manner affected the transaction previously entered into between the parties and the respondents could not, therefore, be treated as trespassers. They were tenants in lawful possession of the land in question which was sold to them by a lawful owner before the resumption took place. It was open for the Jagirdar or the land holder being the owner of the land to dispose of the land in the manner he required and to create tenancies. There could be no fetter on the. right of a landlord to create tenancies on his 'bilanam' or unoccupied land as no third party rights were involved in it. He, therefore, rightly created the tenancies in 1951 and his acts could not be questioned u/s sec. 91 Land Revenue Act proceedings before the Tehsildar merely on the ground that the land happened to be converted into a pasture land. Pasture land has been defined in Section 5 sub-sec. (28) as follows: - 28: - Pasture land shall mean land used for the grazing of the cattle of a village or recorded in settlement records as such at the commencement of this Act or thereafter reserved as such in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government.
It is clear from the record that this land was never converted as pasture land in 1961 although the then Settlement Commissioner had the power to do so. The order of converting this land remained a pious intention to do so and remained unimplemented. Thus when the Tenancy Act came into force in the year 1955 it was not recorded as a pasture land in the settlement record nor was it reserved thereafter in accordance with the Rules framed by the State Government. Therefore, by no process of reasoning the land in dispute could be termed as pasture land as it was not validly created. The Additional Collector and the Tehsildar therefore, in coming to the conclusion that the land was pasture land and the respondents were trespassers ran into a grievous error of law and, therefore, their order was rightly set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur in appeal. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference. The revision application is, therefore, accordingly rejected. .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.