- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner dated 5. 2. 62, whereby he upheld the order of the Trial Court dated 30. 4. 56 accepting the application of Shri Kanahiyalal opposite party and ordering that he be reinstated on the land in dispute. In fact the counsel for the petitioner was not sure whether he should file a revision or a second appeal as would be apparent from a perusal of the memo of revision/appeal. But his petition was treated as a revision and submitted to the Court of a single Member for decision.
(2.) THIS case has had a long and chequered history. An application was submitted under sec. 7 of Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance 24. 7. 52 by the opposite party praying for re-instatement in 14 Bighas of Khasra No. 729 in village Pachva. It was alleged that he had been forcibly ousted by the present applicant and his confederates. The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Makrana before whom the application was presented heard the evidence produced by either party and rejected the application vide his order dated 28. 9. 53. THIS was followed by two revision petitions, one filed by Thakur Jaswant Singh and the other by Shri Kanahiyalal the present opposite party before the Board of Revenue, Jaipur. The Board of Revenue vide their order dated 28. 4. 54 set aside the order of the Lower Court and remanded the case back to it with the direction that it should be tried afresh in accordance with law. It was observed inter-alia that the Lower Court should also consider whether the land included in the Patta in the possession of the present applicant was identical with the land in dispute as it was found that the Khasra numbers entered in the documents produced by either party were entirely different. The Assistant Collector, Nawa who re-heard the case accepted the application of the opposite party and ordered his re-instatement. Thereupon the present applicant went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 23. 5. 59 accepted the same and ordered that the Government should also be made a party in this case. THIS order was assailed before the Board of Revenue in a second appeal and the Board of Revenue vide their order dated 9. 3. 60 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Lower Appellate Court holding that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner was untenable. They remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur with the direction that the appeal filed before him should be heard and determined in accordance with law. The learned Revenue Appellate authority thereupon heard this appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, Nawa dated 30. 4. 56 and vide his order dated 5. 2. 62 dismissed the same. The present revision petition is directed against this order. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that both the lower Courts had failed to take into consideration the directions given by the Board of Revenue in their order dated 28. 4. 54. It was argued by him that the land in question had been given to his client by the Jodhpur Darbar in June, 1924 and that the claim of the opposite party over this land which was based on a Patta issued by the Jagirdar in the Sambat year 2004 (1947) was invalid. It was further contended that sec. 187 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act which had substituted sec. 7 of Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance required that a suit should be filed and it was therefore argued that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Nawa bad been vitiated. My attention was also drawn to RRD 1958 page 1 holding that a documents of surrender should be taken into consideration cautiously. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party argued that it was not necessary for the opposite party to file a fresh suit in view of RLW 1962 (Revenue Supplement) 16 to which one of us was a party in which it was held that "the present lis, after the remand by the Board shall be deemed to have been commenced under the provisions of sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the course of appeal and review would be that available under the Act. By virtue of sec. 6 (a) of the General Clauses Act the provisions of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance would not revive. The lis would be continued by virtue of sec. 6 (a) of the General Clauses Act as if it was a proceeding under sec. 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. " My attention has also been drawn to the order of Assistant Collector in which the main points for consideration following the order of the Board of Revenue were determined as follows : - 1. Whether the applicant (Shri Kanahiya Lal, now opposite party) is a tenant of the land in dispute ? 2. Whether he has been forcibly ejected and should be re-instated ? In support of his case the opposite party produced the settlement parcha (Smt. 2008) girdawari and rent relating to the period following the year Smt. 2004 when he was admitted as a tenant of the land in dispute by Jagirdar Pachva. The learned Trial Court also relied on Ex. P. 11 a surrender document attested by the applicant. On the other hand, the applicant produced Ex. D. 1, Ex. D. 2 and Ex. D. 3, but was not able to substantiate that they related to the land in dispute. He also produced girdawari for the year 2009. In assessing the evidence, the learned Lower Court correctly held that the weight of evidence was in favour of the opposite party and arrived at the conclusion that Kanahiyalal was a tenant of the field in dispute from which he bad been forcibly ejected in the year 2009 by the petitioner. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority who heard the appeal following the order of the Revenue Board also arrived at the same finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish that the Appellate Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It may be stated here that in exercise of revisional powers it is not the province of the Board to enter into the merits of evidence. It is only to see whether the requirements of the law have been duly and properly obeyed by the Court whose order is the subject of revision and whether the alleged irregularity is such as to justify interference with the order. I find that in the present case no material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Appellate Court and am of the view that no interference with the concurrent decision of the Lower Courts is called for in the present case. In the result therefore this revision petition is hereby dismissed. .;