- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against an appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 4.8.1954, in a case relating to correction of entries in the Land Records.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of this appeal on the point of limitation. The application for a copy of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 4.8.54 was submitted on 6 8-54. The appellants received it on 20 8-54 and presented the appeal on 18.11.54. Excluding the time spent in obtaining the copy, the appeal is found to be beyond limitation by one day, The appellants were bound to show that sufficient cause within the meaning of sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act existed for this delay. It was incumbent upon the appellants to make a specific mention of this fact in the memorandum of appeal stating the grounds on which they sought condonation and to move the court to condone the delay. This was not done. As a matter of fact when the learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection regarding limitation the appellant's counsel maintained that it was within limitation. On counting the days from the dated of the order up to the presentation of appeal, the counsel for the appellants, however, conceded that there was a delay of one day in the presenta-tion of the appeal. It was at this stage that an application for condonation was submitted without any affidavit. The allegations contained in this application are vague explain the delay satisfactorily. As observed by Rajasthan High Court in (1951 R.L.W. 303, Seth Naoratan Mal vs. Han Singh, "it is the duty of an appli-cant praying condonation under sec 5 to explain each day's delay satisfactorily and if he failed to do so, he cannot get the benefit of sec. 5". The appellants are therefore, not eligible for the benefit of these section and the appeal is bound to be dismissed on the point of limitation. We have, however, examined the facts of the case and hold that it is a fit case where we should exercise the powers of superintendence conferred upon the Board by sec. 12 of the Rajasthan (Board of Revenue) Ordinance. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents presented an application before the Tehsil-dar Ganganagar on 27.4.53 for correction of entries in the gasht girdavari regarding the land in dispute. The Tehsildar without caring to ascertain that the application was covered by item 18 Group, D Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act and as such was triable by a Sub-Divisional Officer, forwarded the same to the Naib Tehsildar for report. The Naib Tehsildar held a detailed enquiry and submitted his report on 30.7.53 to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar thereafter submitted the case to the S.D.O. Ganganagar who in turn submitted the case to the Collector on 24.2.54. The Collector, Ganganagar returned the case with the following cryptic order: - "The report of the Tehsildar and the Assistant Collector has been perused. As reported by the! Officers the kasht entries be corrected. Returned". An appeal was preferred against this order before the Divisional Commissioner who upheld the order "as the grounds for memorandum of appeal did not disclose any substantial reasons for interference." Hence this second appeal before us. We feel constrained to observe that all the Revenue Officers who had an occasion to deal with the case have failed to bestow that much care and attention upon it which the circumstances demanded. The first question that ought to be considered by a Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of a case should be to as certain if any jurisdiction has been conferred upon him by the law or not. In case it is found that he is so authorised, he should then apply his mind to the procedure which ought to be followed for adjudicating upon the controversy. These manifest requirements appear to have been followed in breach rather than in observance by all the subordinate Officers including the learned Divisional Commissioner. As stated above, the application was triable by the S.D.O. concerned. As provided in Rule 114 of the Rules framed under sec.8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Gourts(Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, the procedure for trying applications is the same as for the trial of suit in as far as it may be practicable. This procedure is clearly laid down in the rules. It was open to the Collector to try this application himself for he enjoys the powers of an Assistant Collector as well. But in that case he should have called the parties concerned an enquiry himself and arrived at his own findings thereafter on the consideration of the evidence produced before him. The procedure followed by him not only flouts the prescribed procedure but is also contrary, to the elementary principles of natural justice. As laid down in A.I.R. 1952, Saurashtra Page 59 (at page 64). The essentials of procedure, in the minimum, are, essentials of notice opportunities to be heard and a tribunal. Essential of notice requires to apprise the victim of the cause against him in order to afford him sufficient opportunity to prepare and to make his answer. Opportunity to be heard is, the second essential of procedure established by law. To condemn without hearing is repugnant to natural justice. Any procedure which dose not guard against this requirement is no procedure by law. There has thus been no proper trial in the case. As observed by the Rajasthan High Court in 1953 R.L.W. 280 (Har Chand vs. Rajasthan Revenue Board). According to the provisions of this section (Sec. 12 of the Rajasthan, Board of Revenue, Ordinance, 1949) powers of superintendence, have been vested in the Board and it is open to the Board to exercise its powers off superintendence over all its subordinate courts in order to regulate the functions of the subordinate courts so as to keep them within their respective spheres of jurisdiction. If a subordinate court disregards any specific provisions of law and does something illegally, it is open to the Board of Revenue to interfere and set the. matters right. We would, therefore, in the exercise of the powers of superinten-dence, set aside the orders of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the S.D.O, Ganganagar with the .direction that it should be tried afresh and decided thereafter in accordance with law.;