- (1.) THIS is an appeal against an appellate order of the learned Additional Commissioner. Udaipur, dated the 31st May, 1955 whereby he set aside the order of the Collector, Bhilwara, in a proceeding about a dispute in respect of the cultivation of the land in Malanami talao.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and examined the facts of the case which have been discussed at great length by the learned Collector in his order dated 20th January, 1955. The main ground on which the order of the Collector has been set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner is that the order given by the learned Collector is bad in law as in conducting the enquiry he completely ignored the various provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. It appears that there was a dispute between the Jagirdar and his tenant in the Jagir village of Bhupalgarh in respect of the land of tank known as Malanami talao. The cultivators contested that they had been in the cultivatory possession of this land but were being unlawfully ejected by the Jagirdar. The Jagirdar on the other hand pressed his claim on this land completely denying the title and possession of the cultivators. This gave rise to an apprehension of breach of peace and the Tehsildar, S. D. O., as well as the Collector proceeded to deal with the matter as revenue courts, without appreciating the fact that proceedings for keeping the peace or for the prevention of the breach of public peace, could be taken only by a Magistrate and not by a revenue court. The only manner in which revenue courts could take cognizance of suits or applications of this nature is given in rules 3 and 114 of the rules farmed under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. Rule 3 of Chapter II of the Rule lays down "Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf." Rule 114, Chapter IV lays down that - "The procedure laid down in Chapter II in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in Revenue Courts: Provided that no decree need be prepared in the case of application." It is thus clear that a Revenue Court can take cognizance of a dispute of this nature Only by means of a plaint presented to it by an aggrieved party. In this case no such plaint appears to have been presented before any of the courts below and the Collector initiated proceedings on his own initiative. The action of the Collector Bhilwara was, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction as rightly observed by the learned Additional Commissioner. The counsel for the appellant has also conceded this point before us and has expressed his inability to show us any law which might validate the proceedings. In the circumstances, the order given by the Additional Commissioner is upheld and his appeal is rejected.;