- (1.) THE learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable. In support of his contention he drew our attention to the case law cited in RRD 1957 page 283 in which it has been held by the Board of Revenue that the appointment of a lambardar is a non-judicial matter and hence the order of appointing a lambardar is not appealable under sec. 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant however argued that Shri Kaluram had applied for the payment of his share from the lambardari amount deposited for the payment to the lambardars for their services. As such it is a question of rights and liabilities of a person. Hence it is an appealable order. We need not go into other facts of the case as we are only concerned whether the order under appeal is an appealable order or not. Before the amendment to sec. 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act it was an admitted fact that the appointment of a lambardar was a non-judicial matter and his dismissal alone was a judicial matter and hence no appeal lay against the order of appointment of lambardar. The amendment Act. No. 33 of 1959 published on 30. 6. 59 brought about a substantial change in the appellate forum. The word "judicial" and "non-judicial" have been deleted from the provisions of sec. 76 of the Act. Sec. 23 of the Land Revenue Act defines the controlling powers of the State and the Board. Sub-sec. (1) lays down that the control of all non-judicial matters other than connected with settlement vested in the State, and the control over judicial matters and matters connected with settlement vested in the Board. Sub-sec. (2) defines judicial matters. According to the definition proceedings in which a revenue court or an officer has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto and the cases specified in the first schedule are the judicial matters for the purpose of the Act. This case does not fall under any category of cases specified in first schedule item 1 to 4. There is no separate notification declaring this matter as judicial matter as mentioned in item No. 15 of the schedule. The only determining factor therefore in such cases is whether any right or liabilities are involved. The brief facts in this case are that Shri Khambaram and Arjunram applied on 24. 8. 58 that they were the only two lambardars but the name of Shri Arjunram does not appear in the register of lambardars. As such his name be entered in it. Shri Kaluram applied on 26. 3. 58 that he has worked as lambardar but the ramune-ration has not been paid to him, which may be paid to him. The payment of ramune-ration could only be decided if it was declared as to who was the lambardar. The Sub-Divisional Officer therefore decided that all these three have been working as lambardars and are therefore entitled to get equal share. The Revenue Appellate Authority held the same view. The appellants therefore wish that they alone should be declared as lambardar. It would thus be seen that the appellants are not agitating about their rights as no rights are being denied to them. Their only grievance is that Shri Kaluram be not allowed to work as lambardar. We therefore hold that it is not a case for determination of rights and liabilities of the appellants. The deletion of the words "non-judicial" and "judicial" from sec. 76 has brought no material change as far as this case is concerned, The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be therefore challenged in appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. . ;