- (1.) THE following question has been referred to a Bench of five Members : - "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of the Larger Bench, whereby the State Govt. has been held to be competent under sec. 83 to call for record of any nonjudicial proceedings (the words judical and non judical being interpreted in the light of conclusions in paras 29 to 31 of the said decision), held by the Board or any of its Members, will not be against the Spirit and clear provisions of sec. 8 of the Land Revenue Act under which the Board of Revenue has been held to be the highest court of appeal, revision, and reference in Rajasthan ?"
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the reference are that two second appeals under sec. 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, relating to allotment of land were heard bo a Division Bench consisting of two Members Shri Ram Singh and Shri Niranjan Singh. THE learned Members found that it has been consistently held by the Board in a number of cases that no appeal lies to the Board in non-judicial matters. Thus in Khamba Ram vs. Kalu Ram (1963 R. R. D. 306) a Division Bench held that appointment of a Lambardar was a non-judical matter and consequently appeal lay to the Board. Similarly in Munsif Ali vs. State of Rajasthan (1966 R. R. D. 66) another Division Bench held that allotment of land was a non-judicial matter and consequently no appeal lay to the Board. THEre was then a turn in 1968 R. R. D. 130. What happened was that three appeals Bhanwarlal vs. State, Bhanwar Singh vs. State and Om Singh vs. State were heard by a Division Bench consisting of two learned Members Shri R. N. Madhok and Shri G. B. K. Hooja. THEy all related to allotment of land and when a first appeal was presented to the Addl. Collector, he, saying that he has no jurisdiction, refused to entertain the same and returned it for presentation to the proper court. When it was presented to the Revenue Appellate Authority, he too did the same thing. Thus no court was prepared to entertain the first appeal. THE appellant, therefore, approached the Board in second appeal. That second appeal was heard by two learned Members Shri R. N. Madhok and Shri G. B. K. Hooja. THEre was a difference of opinion between them. THE matter was then referred to a third Member and it was heard by Shri S. L. Kakar whose judgment is reported in 1968 R. R. D. 130. THE learned Member noticed that there have been certain amendments in secs. 75 and 76 of the Land Revenue Act with the result that in respect of a right of appeal, there was no more any distinction between judicial and non-judicial matters the effect whereof was that since those amendments, appeals lay to the Board of Revenue in nonjudicial matters as well. When the attention of the learned Member Shri Ram Singh and Shri Niranjan Singh who heard the present two appeals was drawn towards these conflicting judgments particularly 'munsif Ali vs. State of Rajasthan' ( 1966 R. R. D. 66 ) and 'bhanwarlal vs. State' (1968 R. R. D. 130) they by their order dated 18-3-70 directed that the papers be laid before the learned Chairman for constituting a Bench for consideration of the following questions : - (1) Whether under sec. 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, as they stand at present, appeals lie to the Board in matters other than 'judicial matter, term 'judicial matter' being understood as in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 23 of the Act and (2) If so, whether the Board's decisions in appeals in non-judicial matters shall be subject to revision by the State Government u/sec. 83 of the Act ? The matter was then heard by a Bench consisting of three Members Shri Ram Singh, Shri Sher Singh and Shri Nirajan Singh who by their judgment dated 23-6 70 reported in 1970 R. R. D. 433 answered both the questions in the affirmative. The two appeals were then heard by the learned Chairman Shri Goverdhan Singh and the learned Member Shri K. S. Ujwal. They were of opinion that the Larger Bench had not considered the provisions of sec. 8 Land Revenue Act, according to which the Board was constituted as the highest revenue court of appeal, revision and reference under the Act. They, therefore, framed a question as quoted in the beginning of this judgment and referred the same to a Full Bench of the Board and it is this matter which is before us for consideration. It may be noted that both the references, the one already answered in 1970 R. R. D. 433 and the other which is now before us, have arisen out of two second appeals in allotment cases which are non-judicial matters. Any objection having been raised that in nonjudicial matters no second appeal lies to the Board and there being conflicting decisions on this point, a reference to a Larger Bench to resolve that conflict was most appropriate and it was with this object that question No. 1 as quoted in para 3 above was framed by the D. B. and was later on answered by the L. B. in 1970 RRD433 in the affirmative But what is the relevancy of the second question, we are unable to appreciate. On the basis of answer to question No. 1 above without any answer to question No. 2, the D. B. can conveniently dispose of the two appeals before it. As to what remedy, if any, would be open to the aggrieved party against the final judgment of the D, B. disposing of these two appeals in non-judicial matters, is no concern of that Division Bench or of the Larger Bench or of this Full Bench of the Board The question whether against the final judgment of the Board in non judical matter, a revision under sec. 83 would lie to the State Government is purely academic, an answer to which either way will not help the Board on its judicial side in disposing of either the present or future appeals in non-judicial matters coming before it. The Board and its Benches are concerned with those questions only which in proceedings before the Board are directly and substantially in issue between the parties thereto or which have some bearing thereon. Question No. 2 falls in neither category and it is no function of the Board to raise and solve hypothetical problems. Obviously this question has no relevancy to the cases in hand and the observations of the Larger Bench and its answer thereto are all without jurisdiction having no binding effect. The question which has now been referred to us is nothing but a new edition of the old question No. 2 with a request to re-examine the matter in the light of additional statutory provisions which escaped the attention of the learned Members of the Larger Bench. We feel that our opinion on and answer to this new question will suffer from the same infirmity of being without jurisdiction as did the observations and answer of the Larger Bench on question No. 2. The learned counsel for the parties and other learned Advocates who were kind enough to appear in this reference to assist and aid us in arriving at a correct conclusion in answering the question referred to us, drew our attention to Notifica-tion No. F. 6 (46) Rev /gr. 4/72 dated 22nd August, 1972, of the Government of Rajasthan whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the State Government has delegated its powers under sec. 83 of the Act of revision in non-judicial matters to the Board. In view of this change in the circumstances, the problem posed in question No. 2 and reagitated in the new question before us is no more of any practical significance and has lost even that academic glamour and interest which was there in it prior to this notification. As a result, we do not think it proper to answer the new question, And all that we need say is that the Division Bench hearing these two appeals may now proceed to hear and dispose them of in the light of the answer to question No. 1 already replied by the Larger Bench in 1970 R. R. D. 433 but ignoring the answer to question No. 2 as being irrelevant and without jurisdiction. . ;