- (1.) THIS is an appeal against a decision of the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 30. 10. 1954, in a case "regarding dispute regarding possession of land of Shri Parashnathji-ka-Mandir, in village Begun. "
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. In view of the order that we are making in this case nothing need be said about the merits at this stage. The proceedings commenced with a letter issued by the Superintendent Court of Wards and Jagir Department of the former Rajasthan on 19. 3. 1949 to the Munsarim Begun forwarding a copy of the application presented by Ram Sukh and Kalu Sevaks wherein it was alleged that they had been wrongfully dispossessed from their Kharam land by the Jagirdar. After necessary enquiries by the Munsarim of the Court of Wards the papers were eventually forwarded to the S. D. O. Begun on 13. 1. 50. On 31. 1. 1951, when the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, came into force the case was pending before the S. D. O. on 19. 9. 1952 the S. D. O. submitted the papers to the Collector with the recommendation that the jagirdar had obtained wrongful possession over the land in dispute and that the Sevaks were entitled to restoration. The Collector after obtaining further information from the S. D. O. concerned forwarded the papers to the Commissioner On 28. 10. 1953, endorsing the views expressed by the S. D. O. On 14. 7. 1954 the Commissioner sanctioned the proposal of the subordinate officers and as regards the question of Muafi the institution of a fresh enquiry was ordered by him. On 8. 9. 1954, the respondent applied before the Commissioner who after issuing notice to the parties revised his previous order and passed a fresh order on 30. 10. 1954, the operative portion of which may be quoted as below : - "the case has been heard, it is right that under these circumstances the land Was ordered to be given to Yati by the order of the Mehktma khas. As such the land vests with Yati and if the Sevaks have any objection they must move the proper authorities for change of possession. The previous order issued by this office is vacated regarding giving possession to Sevaks. " The Sevaks have come up in appeal against this order before the Board. It is clear from the perusal of the record that the appellants (Sevaks) have been clamouring for recovery of possession over the land in dispute with the allegation that they have been deprived of the same wrongfully. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued before us that no prayer for recovery has been specifically mentioned in the copy of the application. Looking to the application as a whole it cannot be doubted that it complains of wrongful dispossession and the prayer is for removal of attachment which would tantamount to recovery of possession. It is significant to observe that this nature of the case was present before the mind of the S. D. O. himself whose recommendation touches this point. The Collector and the Commissioner also understood the case to be about the recovery of possession and their decision was, therefore, about this point alone. As laid down in sec. 6 (1) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts all proceedings pending before Revenue officers at the time of the enforcement of the Act must be deemed to have commenced under the Act and shall be tried, heard, and determined in the manner prescribed by or under this Act. A suit for recovery of possession by a person dispossessed wrongfully is covered by item 12, Group B, Schedule I of the Act. The S. D. O. therefore, should have treated this as a suit. He should have asked the plaintiff-appellant to give better particulars of his claim, to supply the deficiency in court-fee, if any, and thereafter should have proceeded further with the case in he manner prescribed for the trial of suits. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the suit is barred by res judicata and by limitation. We need not express any opinion on the merits for the obvious reason that it will be open to the respondent to contest the suit on these grounds or any other ground that he may consider desirable. It, therefore, becomes perfectly clear that the procedure prescribed by law was not followed in the present case. The S. D. O. should have decided the case himself and it was incompetent for him to submit the case to the Collector or the Commissioner who too had no jurisdiction in the matter. After the decision of the case the party aggrieved by the decision could have gone up in appeal as laid down in law. There has thus been grave irregularities in the exercise of their jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. We would, therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and direct that the case be remanded to the court of the S. D. O. Begun with the direction that it be tried with further and decided afresh in accordance with law. .;