Ranawat, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts of this case are that Surajmal and Rawti filed an application under Section 7 of the Rajas-than Tenants' Protection Ordinance in the court of the special Sub- divisional Officer, Bharatpur, for reinstatement on the land khasra Nos. 87, 88, 91, 95 and 120 in Tahsil Rupbas on the ground that they were in possession of the land on the 1st of April 1948, and that they were dispossessed by the landlords on the 20th of July 1949. The Special Sub-divisional Officer at first allowed the application of Surajmal and Rawti, but after further enquiry rejected it. Surajmal and Rawti then filed a revision application in the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and their application was allowed, on the 22nd March 1951, and they were ordered to be put in possession of the disputed land. This application has been filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan Revenue Board dated the 22nd March 1951.
(2.) The petitioner has raised the following points in this application : 1. The tenants Surajmal and Rawti had failed to prove the fact of their being ejected or dispossessed from the disputed land and as such the Sub-divisional Officer or the Rajasthan Revenue Board had no jurisdiction to order the possession of the disputed land to be handed over to them under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Tenants' Protection Ordinance. 2. While the case was pending in the Rajasthan Revenue Board, a compromise was entered into by the parties under the terms of which the tenants Surajmal and Rawti undertook not to press the revision application in the Rajasthan Revenue Board They endorsed their desire not to press the revision application on the back of the summonses which were issued to them by the Rajasthan Revenue Board. The fact of the compromise was not enquired into by the Rajasthan Revenue Board and the revision application was decided on the merits. In doing so, the Rajasthan Revenue Board ignored the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and exercised the jurisdiction illegally. Rule 53 of the Rules framed by the Government for the guidance of the Rajasthan Revenue Board, which was referred to by the Board of Revenue in its judgment did not empower the Board of Revenue to ignore the fact of the compromise.
(3.) The Senior Member of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue, Mr. Altaf Ahmad Kherie, decided the case on the 22nd February 1951, subject to the concurrence of his learned colleague, and the Junior Member of the Board of Revenue gave his concurrence on the 25th of February 1951 without hearing any of the parties. The procedure adopted by the Junior Member in expressing his opinion without hearing the parties was unjust and against the principles of natural justice. Such a procedure was not authorised by law.;