- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1959, against an order of the Assistant Collector, Sambhar Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta) dated 23-10-1955, refusing protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The applicant applied for reinstatement over the land in dispute with the allegation that he had been in possession since long and was dispossessed wrongfully by the opposite party on the day immediately preceding the date of the presentation of the application in the lower court. The opposite party denied the allegation. The learned Assistant Collector, however as a result of the enquiry by held by him came to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the land in dispute since long and that he was dispossessed wrongfully by opposite party as alleged in the application. He has,however, observed in his judgment that s.7 of the Ordinance had no application to the case inasmuch as no relationship of landholder and tenant existed between the parties and that the protection of the Ordinance was not available against a trespasser. Much need not be said on the point for the question stands determined authoritatively by a Full Bench decision of the Rajashan High Court in Goinda vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, reported in 1954 R.L.W. 259. A number of decisions including 1953 RLW 223 were examined in this case and it was held that. "There is no reason to cut down the wide amplitude of sec. 7 (i) affording protection to tenants, whether it be against ejectment by landholders or at the instance of landholders, or by third persons who are trespassers. Consequently, the protection afforded by sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, is also available in case of dispossession of a person in occupation of the holding on or after the 1st by day of April,1948,as tenant as defined in the Ordinance, when such dispossession is made by a person other than the landholder e.g. a trespasser," The learned Assistant Collector was, therefore, not justified in refusing protection. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant strenuously argued before us that the decisions of the High Court and the Board of Revenue touching on the point were brought to the notice of the lower court and yet it refused to examine them. It was also argued that this act of the lower court amounts to deliberate disregard of authority and insubordination. There is, however, nothing on the record to suggest that any rulings were actually produced before the lower court. Nevertheless, we cannot help observing that the learned Assistant Collector in taking the view that he took betrayed a colossal ignorance of the law on the subject. This tends to show that he has not been making any serious efforts to keep himself in touch with the reported decisions of the superior courts, an omission which does not reflect any credit upon his competency. It is true that the counsels are primarily expected to produce, the relevant case law on point in controversy before a court but that does not absolve the court itself from the duty of keeping itself abreast of all the important reported decisions of the superior courts. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that the applicant shall be reinstated over the land in dispute with immediate effect.;