- (1.) THESE eight applications have been filed under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Ajmer Act ). The applicant is common in all these eight cases whereas the opposite party is different in each case. But all these cases hinge on the same facts and points of law and are therefore being disposed of together by this order.
(2.) THE facts briefly are that Ramrichpal, the applicant in all these eight cases filed applications u/sec. 104 of the Ajmer Act against the opposite parties claiming that he had obtained the lands in dispute on lease under the orders of the Chief Commissioner, that he was the Bhooswami and occupancy tenant and that the opposite parties had without his consent cultivated the land some time in 1953. He prayed for the ejectment of the opposite parties. THE opposite party in each case denied the allegations of the applicant and claimed to have come into possession with the consent of the Istamrardar. Under sec. 104 of the Ajmer Act, which was then in force, any person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act was liable to ejectment and also to pay damages on an application made to the Sub-Divisional Officer. THE applications for ejectment were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kekri, on 9. 9. 1959 and decrees of dismissal framed. Aggrieved by these decrees the applicant moved the Sub-Divisional Officer on. 29. 9. 59 to submit the record of the cases to the Collector for confirmation in accordance with the provisions of sec. 182 of the Ajmer Act. THE cases came up for hearing by the learned Additional Collector, Ajmer who purported to confirm the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. It may be stated here that the Ajmer Act was repealed under the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957, the repeal having become effective from 15. 6. 58. On the same date the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act) came into force. It is common ground between the parties that from 15. 6. 1958 the applications made under sec. 104 of the Ajmer Act had to be heard and decided in accordance with the provisions of sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Act. THEre is also the authority of a Division Bench of this Board cited as R. R. D. 1961, P. 215 to this effect. Sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Act says that all cases relating to matters dealt with in the Rajasthan Act and pending on the coming into force of this Act shall be deemed to have commenced under this Act and shall be tried, heard and determined in the manner prescribed by or in this Act. THE ejectment of unauthorised persons is a matter provided for in sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Act. THErefore the applications for ejectment that had been brought by the present applicant for revision in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kekri, which had remained pending on 15. 6. 1958 had to be determined in the manner prescribed under the Rajasthan Act. In other words from 15. 6. 58 these applications were to take their subsequent course according to the procedure laid down by or in the Rajasthan Act. Now we come to the point of disagreement between the parties. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has raised the preliminary objection that since the Ajmer Act stood repealed with effect from 15. 6. 1958, these applications for revisions are not competent u/s. 187 of the Ajmer Act. The learned counsel for the applicant concedes that these applications for revision are not competent under the provisions of the Ajmer Act. But it is his contention that we can exercise our revisional powers under the provisions of the Rajasthan Act or our general powers of superintendence and control over revenue courts and offices if we find that there has been unlawful assumption of jurisdiction. The learned counsel on the two sides agree that the order of the learned Additional Collector is without jurisdiction since he purported, to act as a confirming court under the Ajmer Act which was not in force on the date on which the orders of confirmation were passed. Now under the Rajasthan Act no appeal to the Board is provided against an order of the nature passed by the learned Additional Collector. The obvious remedy then is a revision. We put it to the learned counsel for the opposite parties as to what would have been his remedy if the orders of the Additional Collector had been against his clients and he had no answer to this. The orders of the learned Additional Collector in that case would not have been appealable to us in this Board and the only remedy would have been to come up to us for revision. In this view, even though the learned counsel for applicant have wrongly invoked sec. 187 of the Ajmer act which is no longer in force for the purpose of these cases, we are fully competent to interfere in exercise of our revisional powers under the Rajasthan Act since these cases, which started under the Ajmer Act, have to take their course from 15. 6. 1958 in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Act. The learned counsel for the opposite parties states that he has no objection to our setting aside the orders passed in these cases by the learned Additional Collector, but he adds that the proper remedy for the applicant was to bring appeals under the Rajasthan Act against the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kekri, and that since no such appeals were brought the decrees framed by the Sub-Divisional Officer have become final and a valuable right accrued to his clients. On this ground be urges that while the orders of the learned Additional Collector may be set aside the decrees framed by the Sub-Divisional Officer should not be disturbed. The learned counsel for the applicant however says that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer went on acting under the provisions of the Ajmer Act even when that Act stood repealed and as such the orders passed by that court should also be set aside. For this proposition he seeks to rely on R. R. D. 1961 p. 214 referred to earlier. In that case a remand was ordered with the direction that the Sub-Divisional Officer should hear, try and decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Act. We think that that case is distinguishable from the cases that we have before us. The reason why that case was remanded was that the grounds taken for ejectment were different from those permissible under the Rajasthan Act, which provides that ejectment can only be ordered in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Act. In the present cases that we have before us the ground taken for ejectment under sec. 104 of the Ajmer Act was the same as that provided in sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Act. Therefore the ratio for remand in that case does not apply to the present cases before us. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has pointed out that the procedure for hearing applications under the Ajmer Act was the same as for suits under the Rajasthan Act and that this procedure was followed by the learned Sub-Divsional Officer even after the Ajmer Act ceased to be in force and yielded place to the Rajasthan Act. The learned counsel therefore, urges that even though the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was not aware of the change in the law, the proceedings taken by him upto the stage of the disposal of the applications for ejectment fully conformed to the procedure prescribed in the Rajasthan Act and cannot be held to be illegal. We are in agreement with this view. The illegality crept in only when the learned Sub-Divisional Officer made a reference to the learned Additional Collector for the purpose of confirmation of his own orders. The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and the decrees issued by him are separable from the subsequent proceedings and there is no reason why these being perfectly legal in themselves should be set aside. The result of the foregoing discussion is that we accept these applications for revision only to the extent that we set aside the orders passed by the learned Addl. Collector purporting to act as a court of confirmation under the Ajmer Act. The orders passed by the S. D. O. will stand. We would make it clear that it would be open to the applicant to invoke the remedy of appeal provided in the Rajasthan Act against the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissing the applications for ejectment. .;