- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 11-11-68 of the Special Board constituted under R. 30 of the Rajasthan Tenancy ( Fixation of Ceiling on Land) (Government) Rules, 1968 exempting resumption of the Farm in terms of cls. (d) and (e) of sub-sec. 1 of sec. 30-J whereunder sec. 30-E is held inapplicable to efficiently managed specialised farms registered in the prescribed manner for cattle breeding, horse breeding, sheep breeding, wool raising and dairying and other efficiently managed farms which consist of compact blocks and whose break-up is likely to lead to a fall in production.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised before me that the revision application was not maintainable as under R. 51 an appeal has been provided in terms of sec. 226 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the non applicant cited Amir Bux vs. State ( 1957 RRD 61 ), Akan vs. Vijay Chand (1962 RRD 106) and State of Rajasthan vs. Pataria (1967rrd 37 ). In reply the learned Government Advocate while conceding the proposition that normally where an appeal is maintainable, no revision will lie has argued that this is nevertheless not an inflexible rule. He relies on Bhagwat Singh vs. Amarsingh (RRD 160 ). In this case a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the revision on the ground that the appellants had a right of second appeal before the Commissioner and as they had deliberately omitted to avail of the same, the revision should be treated as invalid. It was held in this case that ordinarily a party should exhaust the right of appeal before it can invoke revisional jurisdiction. But this is not inflexible rule of law. There may be circumstances where interference would be justifiable even if second appeal has not been filed. It is argued by the learned Government Advocate that in this case the Special Board required to be constituted under R. 30 should be comprised of three members, namely, (1) S. D. O. as the Chairman, (2) the District Agriculture Officer, and (3) the District Animal Husbandry Officer since exemption was claimed under cl (d) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 30-J. It is stated that the failure of the S. D. O, to associate the D. A. H. O. in the Special Board strikes at the root of the constitution of the Special Board and the order of the Special Board is, therefore, per se void and that this is a lacuna which must be taken note of by this court in its revisional jurisdiction, as it deprives the Special Board of its jurisdiction to consider the matter. This argument must prevail. It is conceded that out of 741 bighas of land which covered this composite farm, 200 bighas are covered by the Cattle Breeding Farm which falls within the purview of cl. (d) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 30 J. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the S. D. O. to associate the DA. HO. in the Special Board before whom the Application of the respondent was placed for consideration. Evidently this aspect of the matter appears to have been overlooked by the S. D. O. In not doing so, the clear provisions of R. 30 have been violated and the Special Board cannot thus be held to have been properly constituted. I, therefore, think it is a fit case in which the revisional jurisdiction of this court should be exercised and the impugned order which was passed by the improperly constituted Board be set aside as a nullity. I, therefore, accept this revision petition in these special circumstances, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the S. D. O Gangapur for reconsideration and re-decision by a properly constituted Special Board. .;