- (1.) THE circumstances which have given rise to this application for revision against the order of the learned Commissioner, Bikaner, dated the 3rd May, 1955, may be stated as below - Sunder Singh the non-applicant, applied for the grant of ahata No 82 on raiyatana on 21-3-52 to Tehsildar Hanumangarh who issued a notice inviting objections within 15 days as to the sale of the land to the non-applicant. THEreupon two persons Jeet Singh and Pooran Singh applied for the allotment of same land, but their applications were dismissed by the Tehsidar as they were received after the expertly of the period fixed for filing objections. Subsequently the applicant Ganpat Singh presented an application on 4 3-53 for the allotment of the land to him. This was also rejected as being time barred. THE Naib-Tehsildar to whom the application of the non-applicant was sent for enquiry, recommended the allotment of the Ahata in question to him. THE Tehsildar did not however agree with the proposal and recommended that the land in question be given to Ganpat Singh, the applicant, as he had no residential plot of his own in this village where he had been cultivating an agricultural holding. THE Assistant Collector however did not accept the recommendation of the Tehsildar as according to him the application of the applicant stood rejected as being barred by time and sanctioned the allotment in favour of the non-applicant. In appeal before the learned Collector Ganganagar the order given by the Assistant Collector was reversed and the allotment was ordered to be made in the name of the applicant. In second appeal the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, set aside the order given by the Collector and agreeing with the Assistant Collector Hanumangarh ordered the Ahata to be allotted to Sunder Singh. Hence this revision application to the Board.
(2.) WE have gone through the record of the case and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. An important law point is involved in this case as to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts and the procedure to be followed by them in disposing of applications for the allotment of home-site situated in Abadi outside municipal limits. Rules for the allotment of sites are given in a notification issued under the signatures of the Revenue Minister of the former Bikaner State, dated 25-4-22, and the forum for the institution of applications and appeals in matters relating to giving land to settlers on Raiyatana is given in item 14, Appendix D of the statement of powers of the former Bikaner State, 1946. The Former Bikaner State integrated into Rajasthan in 1949,and the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction)Act was promulgated in 1951. By the promulgation of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (hereafter to be described as the Act)the existing laws of the covenanting States (including Bikaner) in so far as they related to matters dealt with in the Act have been repealed by sec. 2 of the Act. Further sec. 6 (1) of the Act provides that - "all suits cases appeals, applications, reference and proceedings pending before a revenue court on the coming into force of this Act shall be deemed to have commenced under this Act and shall be tried, heard and determined in the manner prescribed by or under this Act. " Again sec. 7 (1) of the Act lays down that - "ail suits and applications of the nature specified in the first and second schedules shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. " Item 14 of Group E, Schedule I of the Act deals with the applications for the purchase of home site in Abadi outside municipal limits. It, therefore, naturally follows that after the promulgation of the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction)Act the forum for applications and appeals of this nature shall be the same as given in item 14, Group E of the first Schedule and items 15, 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. An application for the purchase of home-site in an Abadi area outside the municipal limits is thus triable by a Tehsildar and his order is appealable to the Collector and a second appeal would lie to the Commissioner. Now the question arises as to whether the rules of the former Bikaner State laying down the method of allotment are still in force inspite of the promulgation of the Act. In Prabuda vs. The State of Rajasthan (1954 RLW 459) a similar question arose before a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. It was held that - "the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction)Act is concerned with the procedure and jurisdiction of revenue courts and with nothing else. Therefore, sec. 2 of the Act will repeal the provisions existing in Rajasthan before the Act came into force in so far as those provisions relate to the procedure and jurisdiction of the courts. This section does not repeal other provisions of tenancy or revenue laws of the covenanting States which deal with matters other than those relating to procedure and jurisdiction". It is, therefore, clear that the rules of the former Bikaner State as regards method of allotment are still in force and shall apply to the present case. Coming now to the facts of the case, it appears that on receipt of an application of the non-applicant the Tehsildar issued a notice inviting objections to be filed within a period of 15 days as to its sale to the non-applicant. This procedure is neither provided in the rules for allotment of home sites of the former Bikaner State, dated 25-4-22 nor is it contemplated under any of the provisions of the Act. Further there is no provision in the Act requiring Tehsildar to make a recommendation to the S. D. O. in such matters. By virtue of item 14 of Group E of the 1st Schedule of the Act, the Tehsildar is himself authorised to dispose of such applications and an appeal against his order can lie only to the Collector. The Tehsildar was, therefore, obviously wrong in submitting the case to the S. D. O. and the latter had no jurisdiction to disagree with the recommendation of the Tehsildar and substitute his own views for acceptance by the Collector. However, we feel that the case has not been dealt with properly from the very beginning. We therefore, allow the revision application, set aside the orders of the lower courts and direct that the case be remanded to the Tehsildar for hearing the parties afresh and deciding their applications according to law in the light of the observation made above. . ;