Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a writ application by Daljeetsingh under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India graying for a writ of certiorari against the order of the Board of Revenue. It has been opposed on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 8.
(2.) THE facts, which are relevant for our purposes are these. THE applicant Daljeet Singh was in possession of certain khasra numbers which were ghair mushtaqil lands situated in village Kandra, Tehsil Pali. It appears that in 1946 he applied for grant of a patta of this land. THE proceedings dragged on for 3 years, and on the 10th of November, 1949, Tehsildar Pali, ordered that a bapi patta be issued to the applicant. Before this Order was made, the Marwar Land Revenue Act (No. XL) of 1949 had come into force. It appears that the patta was not actually issued till 1951 when the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. I) of 1951 had came into force on the 31st January, 1951. As that Act provided that applications for obtaining tenancy rights according to law in force were triable by a Sub-divisional Officer, the record was transferred to the court of the Sub divisional Officer for the issue of patta. THE Sub-divisional Officer passed an order on the 26th October, 1951, by which he order that the patta should be granted to the applicant according to the order of the Tehsildar, dated 10th November, 1949. THEre was then an appeal to the Collector by the opposite parties, which was dismissed. THEy went up in further appeal to the Commissioner, and the Additional Commissioner allowed that appeal holding that the order of Tehsildar had not been complied with, and that the patta had been granted without making proper enquiry. THEn the applicant went in revision to the Board of Revenue, and that revision was dismissed. THE present application was filed after the dismissal of the revision by the Board of Revenue. The main point, which has been argued in this Court, is whether the Tehsildar had power to grant a bapi patta under the law in force on the 10th of November, 1949. The applicant contends that by virtue of a notification dated 21st of December, 1948, by the former Ruler of Jodhpur, the Tehsildar had such power, and the grant of the patta by him was therefore right. It is further contended that that order of the Tehsildar was open to appeal under sec. 33 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, and as it was not taken in appeal within the time allowed, it became final, and it was not open to the Additional Commissioner, on an appeal from an order of the sub-divisional Officer, dated 26th October 1951, to set aside the order of the 10th of November 1949. We shall first consider the question whether the Tehsildar had authority to grant bapi patta under the Marwar Land Revenue Act (No. XL) of 1949. The relevant provisions are to be found in Chapter XI begin-ning with sec. 230. This Chapter deals with settlement of khalsa villages, and provides what the Settlement Officer has to do during such settlement. We may briefly summaries the provisions of this Chapter up to sec. 207 as these are the relevant sections for our purposes. Sec. 119 says that the Settlement Officer may divide the lands into survey numbers, and recognize existing survey numbers, reconstitute them or form new survey numbers. Sec. 200 gives power to the Settlement Officer to sub-divide survey numbers and and to apportion the assessment among the sub-divisions. These two sections are in active voice, and the Settlement Officer is in nominative. Then we come to sec. 201. It is in the passive voice, and provides that the area and assessment of survey numbers and sub-divisions of such numbers shall be entered in records. But though the section is in passive voice, obviously the entry is to be made under the orders of the Settlement Officer. Then comes sec. 203 which is also in passive voice. It provides -that on every survey number, a definite and separate sum shall be assessed as land revenue. Here again it is obvious from the scheme of this chapter that his assessment is to be made by the Settlement Officer, and by no one else, Then we come to sec. 204 which is the crucial section, and applies to the present case. That section reads as follows - "the assessment of a survey number shall in the first place be offered to the person, if any, holding the survey numbers. " This section is also in passive, voice, and the contention on behalf of the applicant is that the authority to offer the assessment of a survey number is not given to the Settlement Officer by this section and, therefore, the notification of the 21st December, 1948, by which the Tehsildar was to give bapi patta in occupied land still stood. We are, however, of opinion that this interpretation will lead to absurd results. It will mean that, during the settlement operations, the settlement officer will not be in a position to settle and survey numbers with the persons occupying the land, and would have to go to the Tehsildar for that purpose. Therefore, even though sec. 204 is in passive voice, it obviously sets out the power of the Settlement Officer during settlement operations, and lays down that during settlement operations the assessment of a survey number, shall be offered to the person holding the survey number, and this offer can only be made by the Settlement Officer. Then comes sec. 205 which lays down what happens when the person in possession refuses to accept the settlement. The land is then treated as unoccupied, and the person in possession is ejected by the Deputy Commissioner. Then comes sec. 206 which gives power to the Deputy Commissioner to settle unoccupied lands. The reason why the Deputy Commissioner comes in this section is obvious. The Settlement Officer deals with people who are already on the land. It is so part of his business to find new tenants, and that part of the work is rightly left to the Deputy Commissioner by sec. 206 Then comes sec. 207 which provide that a bapi patta shall be given to the person to whom the grant is made under sec. 204 or 206. It is also in the passive voice; but it obviously follows that the patta will be given by the person who grants it, namely the Settlement Officer under sec. 204, and the Deputy Commissioner under sec. 206. We may add that there is a slight complication in sec. 206 because its operation has been made subject to rules. But this is not a case under sec. 206 add this matter need not detain us longer. This analysis of sec. 199 to 207, therefore, leaves no doubt in our mind that the person to grant a bapi patta of occupied land under, sec. 204 during the currency of the settlement is the Settlement Officer, and no one else. Thereafter, sec. 230 makes the position perfectly clear. It provides that the powers of a Settlement Officer, when settlement operations are not in progress shall be exercised, by the Deputy Commissioner. If, therefore, it is the Settlement Officer who can give a patta during the settlement under sec. 204, it is the deputy Commissioner who can grant the same patta when there is" no settlement in operation. Therefore, the Tehsildar had no power under the Marwar Land Revenue Act (No. XL) of 1949 to grant a bapi patta at a time when no settlement operations were in progress, The notification of the 2!st December, 1948,which granted powers to the Tehsildar, must be held to have been repealed by virtue of sec. 2, sub-sec. (2) of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, as that notification is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act which we have already analysed. It follows, therefore that when the tehsildar granted the bapi patta to the applicant on the 10th of November, 1949, he was acting beyond his powers. Then we come to the next point urged on behalf of the applicant, namely that the Additional Commissioner, at any rate, had no powers to set aside the order of the 10th of November, 1949. It is in our opinion unnecessary to consider this point in detail As we have come to the conclusion that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to grant a bapi patta on the 10th of November, 1949, and as the effect of the order of the Additional Commissioner has been to set aside the order which, in our opinion, could never be passed by the Tehsildar on that date, we feel that substantial justice has been done, and we should not interfere, in our extraordinary powers, with the order of the Board of Revenue, by which the order of the Additional Commissioner was confirmed. The writ petition is therefore rejected. In view however of the fact that the sections of the law were in passive voice, and there Might have been some doubt about their meaning, we pass no order as to costs of this proceeding.;