- (1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, against an order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 21. 4. 54 in miscellaneous case relating to recovery of arrears of rent.
(2.) I have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. I feel constrained to observe that the case provides a fine illustration of unnecessary complication arising from the failure of the revenue officers to study the provisions of law under which they are moved to take action. On 12. 6. 1958 Paney Singh, Man Singh and Phool Singh, Jagirdars of Dabri, applied before the Collector Jhunjhunu with the allegations that one-third share in village Khidersar is in their jagir, that rent of Svt. years 2008 and 2009 is due from the tenants, that the Government has announced remissions which may be allowed to the tenants and the amount due be realised from them under sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act. The learned Collector, for reasons best known to him, wrote out the following order "tehsildar Jhunjhunu for n/a". It is indeed surprising that it did not occur to the learned Collector to acquaint himself with the provisions of sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act. If he had taken the trouble to look into this section it would have become clear to him that this section can be invoked only in cases where there is a general refusal to pay rent. The application as it stands contains no such allegation on the point. Before assuming any jurisdiction in the matter the Collector should have cared to ascertain as to whether any such refusal in village Khidersar existed or not. He could have conducted an enquiry himself or could have asked the Tehsildar to hold a preliminary enquiry in the matter and in that case a clear and explicit order should have been passed to the Tehsildar. It would have also become clear to the Collector that only he and non-else could have directed the recovery of arrears of rent as arrears of land revenue. I fail to understand what necessary action in the matter could have been taken by the Tehsildar. The Collector should have specifically stated as to what was required of the Tehsildar in the matter and forwarding applications with vague phrases like 'necessary action' in the face of the clear provisions of law on the subject can hardly be conducive to efficient revenue administration. On the following day i. e. 13. 6. 1953 Thakur Hari Singh of Gangyasar presented another application before the Collector alleging that Paney Singh etc. have managed to secure an order for recovery of rents in their favour on wrong allegations inasmuch as the grant had been under mortgage with them for about 25 years and that they were entitled to collect the rent. Even this application failed to arouse any serious interest in the mind of the learned Collector to acquaint himself with the real nature of the controversy and this application too was forwarded to the Tehsildar Jhunjhunu for necessary action. The Tehsildar also did not consider it worthwhile to examine the provisions of law on the subject. He probably, assuming that he was required to take some sort of action under orders of a superior officer, applied himself to the task of deciding as to which of the parties were entitled to collect the rents in dispute. On 20. 6. 1953 he, on a reference to the record of the last year held that Hari Singh was entitled to collect the rents. It appears that in the meanwhile Paney Singh etc. came forward with the allegation that they have already realised rents from the tenants. Paney Singh etc. went up in appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Jaipur. It is gratifying to observe that the learned Additional Commissioner examined the case in its various aspects and came to the conclusion that sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act had no application to the case, that the matter was dealt with by the Collector and the Tehsildar in a highly perfunctory manner and that the dispute was beyond the scope of a summary enquiry. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the Collector. Hari Singh has come up in revision before the Board against this order. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has frankly conceded before me the propriety of the order passed by the lower appellate court. His only contention is that the concluding portion of the judgment may amount to an expression of opinion as regards the respective rights of the parties to collect rents in the matter and that it may detrimental to the interests of his clients. On going through these portions of the judgment with the learned counsel I find that his apprehensions are without any basis. The learned Additional Commissioner has not expressed any opinion whatsoever, but has simply referred to a complication that has arisen because of the alleged recovery of the rent by Phool Singh etc. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has also frankly conceded his inability to say anything whereby his application may be included within sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act. The clear position, therefore, is that the application presented by Paney Singh etc. on 12. 6. 1953 does not come within the scope of sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act. The Collector should have rejected this out-right and no further action should have been taken upon it. The real dispute between the parties has no reference whatsoever to the general refusal of tenants to pay rents. The parties claim for themselves the right to recover rent. There seems to be no allegation whatsoever that the tenants are not willing to pay rents. If Paney Singh etc. are to be believed the tenants had actually paid rents to them. The controversy, therefore, is mainly between Hari Singh, who claims the right to receive rents on the basis of alleged mortgage, and Paney Singh etc. , who claim rents on the basis of their grant. The manner in which the subordinate officers have intermeddled with the controversy and have given their adjudication is highly irregular and cannot be upheld. The learned lower court was, therefore, perfectly justified in setting aside all the orders passed by the Collector which would include those passed by the Tehsildar. The parties should be left to have their dispute settled in accordance with the proper procedure. The revision, with these observations, is hereby rejected. .;