Decided on January 09,1967

RAJIA Appellant


- (1.) THESE are two revision petitions filed by Rajia and Hukma against the State Government and arise out of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Udaipur dated 15-6 64. Since both these revision petitions raise a common point of law they were consolidated and heard together and this single order disposes off both these revision petitions.
(2.) THE facts are that both the petitioners were the members of the scheduled caste and under proviso of sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, they were precluded from alienating their holdings in which they held khatedari rights to a person who was not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. THEy however transferred their holding for a consideration in 1960 to a non-member of a scheduled caste or a tribe and thus contravened the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This resulted in illegal transfer and the provisions of sec. 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were attracted. Accordingly, the Tehsildar, issued notice to the vendor and the vendee for ejectment. This notice was contested by the vendors and the vendees. The Sub-Divisional Officer, tried the application and ordered their ejectment. This order was upheld in first appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur by the impugned order. It was against this order that the present revision petitions have been filed. The counsel for the petitioner when asked to show how revisions would lie against the orders passed in first appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority. In these proceedings the liability to ejectment was contested by the opposite party, the application stood converted into a suit and tried as a suit. The counsel's reply was that these applications were not converted into a suit and were tried merely as applications and no decree was framed, with the result that he could not file a second appeal and this may therefore be heard as a revision. The Government Advocate conceded that in trying these applications the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority ran into a manifest error of law and they ought to have tried the application as a suit when there was a contest between the Tehsildar and the parties. I have examined these cases and find that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority did not consider to convert these applications into suit when a contest was raised and they definitely ran into a manifest error of law in disposing off these applications as mere applications and ordering ejectment. It is only when the applications are not contested that the ejectment could be ordered; but in these cases that the applications were contested, they should have been tried as suits and therefore the order passed by both the subordinate Courts was clearly illegal and against the express provision of law. This is sufficient ground for quashing the orders of both the subordinate Courts and remanding this case back to the trial Court for converting the applications into suits and then they should he tried and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 175 and 176 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Revision petitions of the petitioners are therefore accepted and the order of the two subordinate authorities is quashed and the cases remanded back to the trial Court. . ;

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