- (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order of Collector, Sikar, dated the 8th October, 1963 whereby he accepted an appeal against the order of Tehsil-dar, Fatehpur dated the 26th November, 1962 and remanded the case to the Gram Panchayat for local enquiry and disposal according to the provisions of sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with the observation that it was mandatory for the Tehsildar to conduct a local enquiry in order to ascertain the previous custom in a case under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was averred in the application for revision that local enquiry was not contemplated according to the new amendment. Instead, a summary enquiry was required by law which it was pleaded, had been duly conducted by the learned trial Court. It was stated that the learned appellate Court had not considered the amendment and thus the order of the learned lower Court was against law. It was further stated that as the learned appellate Court had wrongly enjoined upon the trial Court to consider the previous custom by making a local enquiry it had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the applicant as well as the opposite party and have examined the record. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the learned appellate Court had committed an illegality in ramanding the ease on the basis of the old law under which the Tehsildar was required to make a local enquiry but as the law now stood a local enquiry was not necessary. All that was required was a summary enquiry. The learned counsel for the applicant drew any attention to sec. 251 of the aforesaid Act which reads as follows : - 251 (1) - "in the event of any holder of land, in actual enjoyment of a right of way or other easement or right, having without his consent, been disturbed in such enjoyment otherwise than in due course of law, the Tehsildar may, on the application of the holder of land so disturbed and after making a summary inquiry into the fact of such enjoyment and disturbance, order the disturbance to be removed or stopped and the applicant holder to be restored to such enjoyment, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up before the Tehsildar against such restoration. (2) No order passed under this section shall debar any person from establishing such right or easement as he may claim by a regular suit in a competent civil court. " He emphasised that under the law as now rephrased, the enquiry to be made by the Tehsildar was to be based solely on the principles of natural justice and sought to establish thereby that the Collector's order in remanding the case on the basis of the lacuna of local enquiry was bad in law. As such he pleaded that the case deserved to be remanded. The counsel for the opposite party conceded that whereas formerly it was statutorily obligatory on the Tehsildar to make a local inspection, now there was no such statutory obligation. He, however argued that summary enquiry did not preclude local enquiry and as a mode of enquiry a local inspection would certainly be deemed as a very desirable mode of enquiry in a case falling under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was also argued by him that under the Rajasthan Divisional Commissioner's Abolition Act the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction in this matter on 26. 11. 62 and the order of the Tehsildar was therefore a nullity. The counsel for the applicant agreed with this view. The learned counsel for the opposite party further cited Brij Kishore vs. Shambhu reported in R. R. D. 1963 page 228 in which it was held that the Addl. Collector was fully justified in remanding the case under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to the Tehsildar for holding a fresh enquiry as there were serious deficiencies in the order of the Tehsildar and in pointing out these deficiencies and in remanding the case to the Tehsildar the learned Addl. Collector had not exercised the jurisdiction with any material irregularity. It must however be stated that in the above mentioned case the Addl. Collector had enumerated several deficiencies, such as no enquiry had been made from the Mukhia of the village, in regard to the enjoyment of the easement, nor had the Tehsildar specifically mentioned the route of the right of way etc. In the case now before us the sole argument advanced by the learned appellate Court is the failure of the learned Tehsildar to make a local enquiry which is based on a misreading of the law. Be that as it may the operative part of the order remanding the case to the Gram Panchayat of competent jurisdiction keeps the avenues of justice open for both the parties. It is settled law that where substantial justice has been rendered by the order of the lower Court it is not advisable to interfere in revision notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for the order are not correct. The exercise of revisional powers is entirely a discretionary matter. It is not advisable to take too technical a view and to necessarily interfere in every case where an order has been made irregularly or even improperly unless grave injustice or hardship would result from a failure to do so. It has been held that where the Court exercises its jurisdiction in the manner prescribed but arrives at a conclusion or a decision which is erroneous in law or fact it does not act illegaly or with material irregularity but decides erroneously in the proper exercise of jurisdiction and unless the finding of the Court is perverse and is likely to result in gross justice. It is not a good ground for revision. Although it may be conceded that the order of the lower appellate Court was based on an erroneous reading of law, and that the Court had failed to assess the evidence produced by both the parties, yet it cannot be denied that the order of the appellate Court in remanding the case for further enquiry to the Gram Panchayat was a perfectly valid order. It also cannot be maintained that a summary enquiry as now required by law precludes a local enquiry. If in the interest of justice, a Court considers a shot inspection to be necessary, it is well within its right to so direct. I therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned appellate Court and hereby dismiss the revision application. This will also have the added merit of avoiding protracted litigation. . ;