- (1.) REVISION petitions Nos. 58 to 61, District Sawai Madhopur, arise out of a single case decided by the Tehsildar, Karauli, and hence will be disposed of jointly by this judgment.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Ordinarily we would have been reluctant to entertain this revision inasmuch as another remedy by way of appeal was open to the applicants and the same has not been availed off. But looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case and the grave irregularities that have been committed by the Tehsildar, we consider it a fit case for interference. Put briefly the facts of the case are that in Svt. 2006 khasra numbers 1289 to 1296 were allotted to Kindurilal and Munshrilal, in village Lohrra. In Svt. 2007 khasra numbers 1300, 1302 and 1303 were allotted to one Bhonria and in Svt. 2009 allotments, with which we are not concerned in the present case, of various khasra numbers were made to Deen Mohammad, Wali Mohammad and others in the same village. It appears that mutations were duly effected in the names of Kindurilal, Munshilal and Bhonria in respect of the lands allotted to them. A reference to the sanctioned mutations shows that these allotments were permanent and the status of khatedar tenants was conferred upon them. No objections were, however, raised to this allotment nor any body appears to have taken any exception to the cultivation that was carried On by the allottees after allotment. In about July, 1953, the residents of village Pitupura submitted petitions to the various officers alleging that the land in question was well within their right, that the allottees had been able to secure allotment clandestinely, and that they be allowed to cultivate the same. Eventually some of these objections came down to the tehsil concerned (Karauli) for enquiry. On the strength of the report submitted by Patwari and the Girdawar wherein all the facts stated above were set out at length, the Tehsildar recommended to the S.D.O. on 13.8.1953 that no further action was called for in the case as the allottees had been secured after huge efforts by the Tehsil staff. It was also pointed out by the Tehsildar that the residents of Pitupura could be easily allotted other lands for cultivation in the same locality in case they genuinely desired such! allotment, but their intention was to use the land in question as pasture land without payment of any rent and hence their device was merely to oust actual cultivators from the land. The S. D. O. agreed with this recommendation of the Tehsildar and in turn submitted the papers to the Collector, Sawai Madhpur, who returned them after perusal on 5.10.1953 to the Tehsil. On 15.9.1953 a fresh application was submitted to the Tehsildar. It is significant to observe that the Tehsildar before whom this application was submitted was the same person who had submitted a detailed report in the matter on 13 8 -1953. For reasons best known to the Tehsildar, he adopted an entirely different attitude on this application and the manner in which he conducted the proceedings over this subsequent application do not reflect any credit upon his efficiency. At first he passed a temporary stay order prohibiting the applicants from cultivating the land. Eventualy that was vacated on 27.10.1953. On 11.12.1953 he addressed a fresh recommendation to the S. D. O. suggesting that the allotment made in favour of the applicant in Svt. 2006 and 2007 be set aside, and the land be re -allotted through the medium of open auction. It is pertinent to observe that while making this recommendation no mention whatsoever was made of his previous recommendation which had been approved by the S. D. O. and the Collector. It is equally pertinent to observe that he himself endorsed this recommendation in the capacity of an offg. S.D.O. and forwarded the same to the Collector. But exception was taken to this procedure by the Collector and the case was returned back for the opinion of the permanent S.D.O. The permanent S.D.O. made the following observations in the case and returned the papers to the tehsildar. "Has not the land come under the jurisdiction of the Irrigation Department ? If so, why the revenue department take any action now -.
(3.) ACCORDING to the tehsildar the S.D.O.s observation amounted to a direction for cancelling the allotment made in favour of Kindurilal, Munshilal and Bhonra, and without caring to ascertain as to whether he had any jurisdiction in the matter or not the tehsildar cancelled the allotment on 24.2.1954 made in favour of these three persons. Subsequently, in June, 1954, Bhonrya, Shama and Punya applied for allotment of this land which was accordingly granted by the tehsildar for one year on the ground that the land in question was unoccupied. In consequence of this temporary allotment the opposite -party took possession of the land and brought it under cultivation. Kindurilal etc. have come up in revision against the orders relating to cancellation of their allotment and subsequent re -allotment in favour of Punya etc. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite -party has argued that the order of allotment passed by the Tehsildar falls under Rules and Procedure for allotment of unoccupied lands published by the Rajasthan Government in Government Gazette dated 26th December, 1953. As the preamble to the rules itself shows, allotment of unoccupied lands only is covered by them. They cannot be invoked to dispossess standing allottes of land to re -allot the same land to others. The orders passed by the Tehsildar forming the subject matter of these revisions are evidently improper and need not be discussed at length. In the earlier stages of the proceedings the Tehsildar was under the impression that no circumstances existed to justify cancellation of the allotment made in Svt. 2006 and Svt. 2007 and this view was accepted both by the S. D. O. and the Collector. As an official subordinate to these two authorities the Tehsildar should have in the first instance considered carefully the desirability of reopening the matter and while resubmitting the case with his opinion he should have made a specific reference to the previous decisions with reasons for reconsideration. Secondly, after the papers had been returned to him with a query by the S. D. O. he should have positively submitted the case back to him instead of assuming to himself the authority of taking a decision on his own initiative for which he also had till then considered it necessary to secure a sanction of superior officers. A query by the S. D. O. should have set the Tehsildar upon serious consideration of the entire case and if he had done so he would have re -submitted the case to him with a fuller resume of the circumstances of the case. Evidently, the query made by the S.D.O. was misunderstood by the Tehsildar and he proceeded forthwith to take action which finds no sanction in the eye of law. The cancellation of khatedari rights is a serious matter and before taking any steps in the direction, the Tehsildar should have consulted the law on the subject. The persons likely to be affected thereby should have been afforded an opportunity to present their case and the elementary principles of justice should not have been thrown to the winds in hastily awarding a decision in the manner done by the Tehsildar. We may point out that the reasons advanced by the Tehsildar for the cancellation of Svts. 2006 and 2007 allotments stand automatically negatived by a subsequent allotment in favour of other persons. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the orders of the Tehsildar Karauli dated 24.2.54 and 16.7.1954 and maintain in tact the allotments made in favour of Kindurilal, Munshilal and Bhonria. Looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case we would, however, allow the opposite -party to harvest the standing crop and thereafter possession be transferred from them to Kindurilal, Munshilal and Bhonria, original allottees.;