- (1.) THE powers vested by sec. 28 in the Settlement Commissioner are discretionary and a reference to the Board is necessary only when he is of the opinion that the order of the lower court should be varied, cancelled or reversed. Provisions of sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction Act, 1951) are not meant to be invoked in order to give a back door relief to a party who has failed to avail of the statutory provisions of appeal within time given by law. Moolchand Chandani, for Applicant This is an application in revision against an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan dated 14.12.53 whereby he refused to refer the case to this Board under sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951.
(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that in village Somasar, Tehsil Desuri, Khasra Numbers 128 to 134 were recorded in the name of Dalla Ram and Hansa Ram and a parcha Was issued in their name by the Settlement Department. The applicant Dewa objected to this and desired that the parcha be issued in his favour. His application was however, dismissed by the A. R. O. on 26th April, 1953. Against this order the applicant Dewa filed an appeal before the Settlement offset, Pali, who by his order dated 14th July, 1953 dismissed it as barred by limitation Dewa applicant then made an application under sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act, 1951, to the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was also dismissed by him as stated above. Hence this revision before the Board.
(3.) THE case was heard ex parte as the opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice. The main grounds of revision urged before me are that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had acted wrongly in not making a reference to the Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act and had also wrongly dismissed his application dated 5 -l1 -53 in which he had prayed that it may be treated as an appeal. It has also been argued that the Additional Commissioner was wrong in holding that the lower -court had not committed any irregularity to justify a reference under sec. 28 of the Procedure and Jurisdiction Act.;