- (1.) THIS is a revision against an Order of the S.D.O. Jaipur dated 14.12.53, in a case under sec. 107 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act, 1947, the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenure Act being referred to wrongly by lower court.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. A preliminary objecjion was raised as to the maintainability of this revision which is bound to fail. In view of the express provisions of sec. 140 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act which provides that no appeal shall lie from any order made under Chapter VI of the Act except an order passed by the Nazim (Assistant Collector) under sec. 138 Sec. 138 relates to arrest and detention of the defaulter. The order which forms the subject matter of this revision directs attachment and sale of immovable property and hence not being appealable can clearly be examined in revision. The taccavi of Rs. 4,00/- was sanctioned to the applicant on 14.9.46 by the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Jaipur of the former Jaipur State. It was initially to be paid in one lump sum but subsequently instalments were fixed. Out of the sanctioned amount, only Rs. 3,500/- have been paid so far and a balance of Rs. 500/- is still outstanding. The last instalment of the taccavi amounting to Rs. 500/-was paid to the applicant on 3 2-50. The applicant had been constantly applying for the grant of residuary amount of Rs. 500/-but has not been able to get the same as yet. It is interesting to observe that on 29.11.52 he was informed that there is no provision in the budget and if the applicant wanted the amount he should present a regular application in the financial year. It appears that the Tehsildar while examining the position of outstanding arrears in his Tehsil on 24.10.53 came to know that a sum of Rs. 800/-, being the amount due on two annual instalments of Rs. 400/- per annum, was outstanding against the applicant and hence requested the S.D.O. sanctioned the attachment of the bagichi which was offered in security for the taccavi loan. The S.D.O- sanctioned the same misquoting the law as stated above. Hence this revision. As the taccavi loan was sanctioned and advanced under the Jaipur State Revenue Standing Order No. 5, its recovery also shall be governed by the same Standing Order and the Rajasthan Taccavi Rules sanctioned by the Government of Rajasthan on 6.2.50 shall have no application to it. As laid down in Rule 30 of the Standing Order, the repayment of taccavi loan shall commence after a period of three years of the completion of the work. On receipt of the report regarding completion of work, the Tehsildar shall fix the amounts and dates of repayment through instalments under Rules 26 and 34. It has been reported by the Naib Tehsildar in the present case that the work is still incomplete though a sum of over Rs. 400/-has been spent on the construction of the well. There is substance in the applicant's contention that the last instalment being not paid as yet to him, it had been impossible for him to complete the work. As pointed out above, there can hardly be any justification for commencing recovery of taccavi loan before the completion of the work. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the S.D.O. dated 14.12.53 and remand the case back to him with the direction that suitable arrangements be made for payment of the residuary amount of Rs. 500/- of the taccavi loan to the applicant and steps for recovery of the loan be taken in accordance with the Provisions of the Jaipur State Revenue Standing Order No. 5 thereafter.;