- (1.) ALL these revisions wrongly styled as appeals have been preferred against one and the same appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Bikaner dated 12. 8. 60; by which he has rejected the appeal against the order of the S. D. O. Nohar dated 11. 11. 59 in a proceeding for the grant of Khatedari rights under sec. 15 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). They all proceed on a common ground of praying for declaration of Khatedari rights on the basis of being tenant on 15. 1. 55 at the commencement of the Act and are opposed also on a common ground of being trespassers not tenants and have been disposed of by the learned lower courts by common judgments. They also involve common points for decision They have, therefore, been heard together, and are disposed of by this single judgment. Briefly put, the facts of the cases are that they applied for being declared to be Khatedars under sec. 15 (1) of the Act on the basis of long and continuous possession on 15. 10. 55, which was opposed by the State with the allegation that the land had been allotted to the applicants by a Jagirdar who had no authority vide 24 (7) of the Bikaner tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Bikaner Act) to grant Khatedari or occupancy rights and that the applicants had themselves realised it by submitting application issued u/s 6 of the Rajasthan Colonization (Bhakra Project Govt. lands ALLotment) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). It has been further alleged that the jagir has since been resumed and the whole land has vested in the State Government and that with effect from 15. 6. 1955, as provided by the Rules, all the leases granted by the Jagirdar expired and, therefore, the applicants were holding the land as trespassers and not as tenants. Both the learned lower courts have held that) the applicants were not holding the land as tenants permanently but only temporarily and, therefore, they were not entitled to be declared Khatedars. In this revision] it has been very strongly contended on behalf of the applicants by Shri Dhonkal Singh counsel that the learned Addl. Commissioner had un-neces-sarily brought in the provision of Rule 2 (viii) of the Rules to hold that the land was being held only temporarily and that the decision of the first appellate court was based on erroneous presumptions and was, therefore, without jurisdiction. It has also been contended that although the learned Addl. Commissioner has written separate judgments he has, as a matter of fact kept one and the same judgment in all the cases and that he has done so without caring to examine whether one and same evidence or similar evidence had been produced in all the cases. On this ground it is being urged that an illegality or irregularity affecting the jurisdiction had been committed.
(2.) IT cannot be disputed that the evidence in all the cases is not the same, nor similar, nor has it been exhibited exactly in the same manner. In some cases all the documents have not been produced and only a few of them have been tendered in evidence and exhibited. The argument that the provisions of Rule 2 (viii) should not have been applied to this case is also not without any force. Even though the land is entered as "arazi Makbuja Jagirdar or Bhogta" and the applicants as "kashtkars" over it, it did not mean that the case should have been examined only on the basis of this entry. The application was under sec. 15 (1) of the Act and should have been exemined on this basis and this alone. There is thus force in this argument. But vide sec. 15 (1) of the Act it can be only a tenant, so far as relevant for the present case, other than a sub-tenant or a tenant of Khud-kasht holding land as tenant at the commencement of the Act that can be declared to be a Khatedar, subject of course to the "proviso" that the land was not situated in Bhakra Project area and had not been let out temporarily to him. The applicants, therefore, should prove themselves to be the permanent tenants, and not temporary cultivators under the relevant law in force before the commencement of the Act. It was the Bikaner Act which was in force at that time. Under the provisions of sec. 18 and sec. 24 (7) of that Act, no Khaedari or occupancy right could be granted in any jagir land which the disputed lands admittedly are. Vide sec. 3 (13) thereof also a Khatedar did not include any lessee and a temporary cultivator. The Bikaner Act, therefore, did recognise temporary cultivators and when the applicants being allottees admittedly from the Jagirdar 'could not be "khatedars" or occupancy tenants, they could only be temporary cultivators, they being decidedly not lessees as well, as dealt with by sec. 25, 26, & 27 of that Act. In view of this provision in law prevailing before the commencement of the Act, the Proviso to sec. 15 (1) will operate against the applicants and will not let them have Khatadari rights applied for. It is an admitted position that no documentary evidence of the allotment in favour of applicants has been produced. What has been produced is only the oral testimony of the applicants who say that the land had been allotted to them long long ago. It is not a long and continuous possession that entitles the applicants to be declared as Khatedars under sec. 15 (1) of the Act. The holding of land not temporarily, but permanently alone could grant this right to them. In the absence of the proof of this fact and the provision of the Bikaner Act to the contrary, the applicants cannot be deemed to have been saved from the operation of the "proviso" of this sub-section. In result, the applicants cannot be deemed to have acquired, even if they are not trespassers, Khatedari rights over the disputed lands. The revisions have therefore no force, and are hereby rejected. .;