- (1.) THIS is a revision against the appellate order of Collector, Tonk dated 23rd February, 1961 by which he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of the Tehsildar Aligarh dated 18th April, 1960.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the opposite party Jagan Nath made an application on 16th November, 1959 that he had been cultivating Khasra Numbers 1166 and 1868 situated in village Uniara for a very long time and that therefore the Patwari should be ordered to enter him as Khatedar thereon. He also produced a copy of the Khasra Girdawari from Samvat 2010 to 2014 to support his allegation. This application was ordered to be entered in the register and a proclamation was ordered to be issued inviting objections. On the next date fixed the opposite party Sri Jagan Nath was examined as an applicant and on the basis thereof notice was issued to the Maufidar of the disputed land Sri Jai Narain, the deceased husband of the applicant before us. It may be mentioned here that an application had been submitted by the opposite party to the Collector, Tonk also on 20th June, 1959 which was forwarded as a matter of routine without even the signatures of the Collector, to the Tehsil. On that application the Tehsildar had taken report from the Patwari about the entries. No further proceedings were taken and in the meanwhile the application referred to above was received. The proceedings thus as a matter of fact started on this later application received on 10th November, 1959. On the next date fixed in the proceedings (27. 11. 1959) the applicant Sri Jai Narain made a request for the grant of time to produce his evidence which was allowed. After that date the case continued to be adjourned at the request of the deceased applicant Sri Jai Narain himself. On 20th February, 1960 the Tehsildar was absent and so was he on the next date i. e. 18th March, 1960. On both these dates the deceased applicant Shri Jai Narain was absent. The case was adjourned to 21st March, 1960 on which date the Tehsildar was present. Because of the absence of Sri Jai Narain or his Vakil the case was decided in favour of the opposite party and he was ordered to be entered as Khatedar thereon on the basis of the Khasra Girdawari and the report of the Patwari. In appeal a special plea was taken on behalf of the applicant that he did not intentionally put in appearance in the Tehsil on the dates the Tehsildar was not present and that as on these dates the adjournment was granted by some ministerial officer he should be treated to have been never informed of the date 21st March, 1960 on which the Tehsildar decided the case against him. The learned Collector did not deal with this point specifically but observed that the applicant was given enough opportunities to produce his evidence which were not availed of by him and therefore the Tehsildar was competent to decide the case in his absence. In revision it is this very point that has been emphasised most on behalf of the applicant. It has been contended that the Reader of the Tehsil had no authority to adjourn the case and the applicant was not bound to appear on the date so adjourned. This is however, an argument made in ignorance with the provisions of Sec. 29 (ii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which authorises the chief ministerial officer of the office of the Tehsil to adjourn the case from time to time in absence of the Tehsildar. It is not contended that the applicant had no notice of the case and that the case was not being adjourned from time to time at his request. The applicant cannot, therefore, be allowed to say that he was not given any notice of the case and that the case was decided without letting him have an opportunity of being heard. The applicant himself wanted an adjournment on the first date i. e. , on 20th February, 1960 on which the Tehsildar was absent. He should have then himself found out as to for what date the case was adjourned and should have further kept himself in touch with the adjournments from time to time. The chief ministerial officer of the Tehsil was authorised to adjourn the case in the absence of the Tehsildar as discussed above. It cannot, therefore, be said that the case was decided without notice to the applicant. Another argument raised on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant was himself a Khatedar as well as Maufidar of the disputed land. Rather at one stage an attempt has also been made to urge for the first time here that the land was his Khudkasht. Sec. 63 (vi) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 provides a suitable answer to this argument. With the enforcement of this Act the tenancy rights were extinguished if they vested in the same person as was the Maufidar of the disputed land as admittedly the applicant Sri Jai Narain was. As for Khudkasht rights this is a point which is being raised for the first time here and which cannot be allowed to be raised in this revision unless there is found any other ground for interference therein. The jurisdiction of the Tehsildar has also been questioned on behalf of the applicant on the ground that he could not have passed the order that he has done under sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. It is contended that a suit for declaration alone could have been filed by the opposite party. This is again an argument made in ignorance of the provision of item 85 "general of Part II of the Third Schedule" of the Act. An application could have been presented under sec. 15 by the opposite party as a tenant of the applicant. Under sec. 217 (2) of this Act such application could have been heard by the Tehsildar because of the subject matter of the suit being of the value of less than Rs. 300/- even if calculated in accordance with the rented value thereof and the State Government not being a party thereto. This revision is therefore without any substance and is hereby rejected. . ;