- (1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar dated 5.4.1962, by which he has only accepted, without granting any hearing to the parties concerned, the report of the Tehsilder, Bhadra, dated 30.3.62. It has been heard ex-parte because of the respondent not having put any appearance despite notice.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 19.3.62 the respondent Jaimal Ram preferred an application to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer complaining that he was continuing to be in the cultivatory possession of the disputed land since Smt. 2016 and that the Gridawari thereof for Smt.2017 had also been done in his name, but that in the current year in which application was being made the Girdawar had intenti-onally made the entry on 15.3.62 in the name of the appellant Bhura Ram. THE prayer was that as under the cover of this entry the crop was being forcibly harvested even though not ripe, the learned Sub-Divisional officer be pleased to inspect the site and pass necessary orders. THE sub-divisional officer forwarded this application to the Tehsildar for enquiry and report. THE Tehsildar went to the spot, made an enquiry into the case and found that the entry during the year in which the application had been made, had been kept in dispute by the Patwari, that the Inspector Land Records had unauthorisedly ordered an entry to be made in the name of the appellant. THE Tehsildar also reported that the cultivation appeared to be that of the respondent Jaimal Ram. It was this report that was sanctioned by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and it is against this order that this appeal has been preferred. Now, vide rule 58(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the time for the inspection of the Rabi crop by the Patwari is, as the crop to be entered in the present case was, from 16th February to 15th of March. Vide Appendix I to Chapter I, Part (VI) of the Rules of " Yearly programme of the work of the Tehsil Revenue Officer. March is the Month fixed for the checking of the Rabi Girdawari by the Tehsildar. Vide same Rule Appendix I to Chapter II, Part (VI) "Yearly programme of the work of the Sub-Divisional Officers" March, is the month fixed for the check of Rabi Girdawari by the bub-Divisional Officer also. Both the Sub Divisional Officer and the Tehsildar could therefore, have entertained and disposed of the application preferred by the respondent to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 19.3.62 before 30.3.62 under the programme referred to above. THE Tehsildar was, therefore, quite within his competence to pass any order or make any report uptil 30.3.62 as he has done. THE learned bub-Divisional Officer did not, however, have any such power after this date ana he could not, therefore, have passed any order on 5.4.62 as he has done. His order, therefore, is clearly without jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, he should not have even sent the) application presented to him for enquiry and report to the Tehsildar. On the other hand, he should have only forwarded it for necessary action or disposal to the Tehsildar, unless he himself wanted to enquire into the matter at the time of his inspection of the Rabi Girdawari (which so apparently never appeared to be the intention of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer in the present case) and in which case he should have kept it with himself. Even if he had asked for the report, he should have returned the Papers to the Tehsildar when the last date of Inspection, 30.3.62, had passed and he had not even inspected the site till then. In this particular case it had been alleged in the application itself that the crop had already been started to be harvested by the appellant and, therefore, there was no standing crop also on the basis of which the learned Sub-Divisional Officer could pass any order after 30.3.62, as has been observed by the Board in Ramsingh Vs. Ghinsi, 1961 RRD 126. Besides, he could not have passed any order without granting to any party and without even inspecting the site and making enquiries on the spot in the presence of the parties. THE order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer thus was not only without jurisdiction but also suffered from illegality and irregularity besides having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice themselves inasmuch as it was passed without granting any hearing to the parties. The question now arises what should be the order that should be passed in this appeal here. It is evident from the report of the Tehsildar that the entry was found to be under dispute by the patwari at the time of his Gast. Rule 199 of the Rules lays down that in case of such disputes the Inspector can only record the facts in the khasra He is further required to enter the statement made by the parties at the end of the Khasra, obtain their signatures and inform the Tehsil of it. If the parties are not prepared to make any compromise, he is also to make a formal enquiry and alter making necessary entries in the Khasra he is required to report the matter to the Tehsildar. He |could have, therefore, reported the matter to the Tehsildar for orders and not made any entry by himself. The entry directed to be made in this case by the Inspector Land Records too was, therefore, absolutely unauthorised and beyond his competence. The matter should have come to the Tehsildar anyhow when the entries were under dispute. In the present case, the matter, came to the tehsildar, the only officer found competent as above somehow, if not through the channel of the Inspector through that of the Sub Divisional Officer on the application of the respondent, Jaimal Ram. The Tehsildar could, therefore, in every manner take cognizance of the case when he had reached the spot during the course of his inspection of Rabi Girdawari and during the period meant therefor. He could have under the circumstances passed a final order in the matter and directed the entry to be made accordingly. Probably he would have done so, but for the Sub Divisional Officer demanding a report of him after enquiry. It is thus apparent that in the present case, it is the Sub-Divisional Officer who has bungled with the matter for nothing and the Inspector Land Records who has acted contrary to the provisions of the Rules. In effect, however, this has not affected the entry. It has been made in accordance with what the Tehsildar found after enquiry on the spot. Therefore, even if it has been made under the orders of unauthorised Officer, (Sub-Divisional Officer) its validity and propriety cannot be questioned, when the Tehsildar duly authorised to order such an entry had also found after enquiry that it should have been the name of Jaimal Ram which should have been entered against the disputed number in the Rabi Gridawari of 1962. The fact of its having been made under the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer can be ignored and it can be treated to have been made under the orders of the Tehsildar. Once it was decided to be treated to be so, it can be only its correctness that can be questioned and not its validity. Such correctness can, however, be questioned only by an action under sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956, and not by appeal. The appellant should as such have had the entry corrected accordingly instead of coming in appeal. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, no appeal can be entertained here. With these observations this appeal is hereby rejected. The appellant should proceed under sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, if he feels so advised as observed and discussed in details above.;