- (1.) THE State of Rajasthan through the Deputy Colonization Commissioner, Bhakra Project, Hanumangarh, applicant, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh dated the 29th September, 1961 coffering khatedari rights on the respondents under sec. 15 (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 over the allotted land.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that originally the respondents filed a suit for declaration of their khatedari rights before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh in 1956. The suit was then transferred to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, where it was dismissed on the ground that notice, u/s 80 was not given to the State. But on appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner, suit of the respondent was treated as an application under sec. 15 sub-sec. (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and remanded to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh who enquired into the matter and held that as no default was committed by the respondents over the conditions of allotment they were entitled to the conferment of khatedari rights. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the application of the respondent for coffering of khatedari rights was previously rejected by the Director of Colonization and this matter was res judicata. The disputed land was situated in colony declared by the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and as such the provisions of that Act applied and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh had no jurisdiction to entertain respondent's application under sec. 15 (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that under proviso to sec. 15 no khatedari right shall accrue to any tenant to whom land has been temporarily allotted in Bhakra area. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, replied by saying that the respondents were allotted land by the State Government in furtherance of the 'grow More Food campaign' under particular terms and conditions. These conditions were subsequently amended by the Government Notification No. F. 3 (132) Rev. /ii/51 dated 15. 3. 1951. The respondents as allottees of land could apply to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction for declaration of their khatedari rights under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act showing that they committed no default of the conditions of allotment under sub-sec. 4 of sec. 15. The Assistant Collector after making an enquiry under sub-sec. 5 of the aforesaid section could either reject or declare the respondents as khatedar tenants. The Sub-Divisional Officer Hanumangarh seized over this matter has rightly declared the respondents as the khatedar tenants of the land allotted to them. We have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and examined the record. It is an admitted fact that the respondents were allotted land in the name and style of Shyam Sundar and Company in furtherance of the "grow more food campaign" on certain terms and conditions. These conditions were subsequently changed. The point for determination before us is the question of jurisdiction of the Officer who can confer khatedari rights over the allottees of land under sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is the claim of the petitioner, the Deputy Colonization Officer, that the officers enumerated in the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 alone can confer khatedari rights u/sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on the allottees of land whereas the respondent claims that the Assistant Collector alone has the jurisdiction to confer this right. Before a decision could be given on this point it is necessary to describe the scope of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and the powers enjoyed by the Collector and the Commissioner constituted under the aforesaid Act. The Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 has only a limited scope. It was only enacted for the purpose of controlling the allotment of land both for agricultural as well as building purposes in the colony to which that Act was specially made applicable. The State Government have issued in exercise of their powers under sec. 128 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act the Rules called (The Rajasthan Colonization Bhankra Project Government Land Allotment and Sale Rules, 1955) controlling the conditions of allotment and the tenancy created by such rules. In addition to this the Government has taken power under sec. 9 of the Colonization Act for rectangulariation of fields, under sec. 10 for the reservation of area for common needs of village. Beyond that the Act does not give any power to the officers constituted under the Act to deal with any matters. It is nowhere mentioned in the Colonization Act that the Officers constituted under the aforesaid Act would deal with matters coffering khatedari rights over the tenancy in the colony. This power is expressly conferred on the Assistant Collector under sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. That section further empowers the Assistant Collector to entertain applications of the allottees of land in furtherance of the grow more food campaign and after enquiry to confer khatedari rights to them if no default of the conditions under which the land was given to them is committed. The jurisdiction, therefore in the matter clearly vests in the Assistant Collector and not in the Director of Colonization. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this question of jurisdiction therefore is baseless. His second contention that the Director of Colonization having already rejected the application of the respondents for conferment of khatedari right is equally untenable in view of the fact that he had no jurisdiction in the first instance to entertain such application and, secondly, if any decision was given by him without any jurisdiction it cannot operate as res-judicata. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh who passed the impugned order acted with material irregularity or illegality in coming to the conclusion that no default of condition of allotment was committed by the respondent. We have seen this judgment on this point which is fairly exhaustive. He has drawn up the points of determination and after considering the evidence adduced from both sides, has given his finding on each point separately. The point No. 2 for determination in the impugned order has not been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in any manner. We have examined the decision on this point and we find that it is based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record and that the respondents committed no default of any of the conditions of allotment and they have properly applied for conferment of khatedari rights. We may, however mention that it is not clear from the record as to who were the persons who formed the body called the Shyam Sundar and Company to whom the land was originally allotted. The respondent conceded that this body was neither a company nor a partnership firm nor a cooperative society. It was a joint application of a number of tenants and for the sake of convenience it was styled as "shyam Sundar and Company". The allotment was made to 'those persons who were mentioned in original application and the khatedari rights would also have been conferred upon those very persons. We may, therefore ask the Assistant Collector to verify the names of these persons to whom khatedari rights are to be jointly conferred and not to grant these khatedari rights to a body wrongly styled as Shyam Sundar and Company as it was not a juristic person. In view of the fore goings observations the revision petition of the petitioner is rejected. Judgment pronounced. .;