- (1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the Divisional Commissioner,Kotah dated 4-12-54 in a case relating to appointment of lumberdars.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised as against the maintainability of this appeal which should prevail. On 31-8-54 a note was put up before the learned Commissioner in the case as below by the office : "In view of the circumstances explained by the Collector Kotah, both may be appointed as Patels of 10 biswas each viz, Sukhlal and Balram. The villagers who are in favour of Sukhlal who will have no grievance now." The learned Commissioner put down the word 'Approved' below this note, Amarlal presented a review application on 16-9-54 before the learned Commissioner which was rejected by him on 4-12-54 with the observation that no valid ground for review existed. Hence this appeal by Amarlal. As provided in Rule 213(1) of the rules made under sec.8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, an order of the court rejecting the review application is not appealable. The appeal is therefore rejected on this ground alone. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we feel impelled to observe that this is a case where we should exercise the powers of superintendence vested in the Board under sec.12 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949, The learned Commissioner while deciding the case on 31-8-54 disregarded completely the elementary principles of justice. The Minimum requirements of natural justice are that the parties should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to put up their case before the court and a proper hearing should be given to them. In the present case, we find that the learned Commissioner received a representation from certain villagers and forwarded the same for the consideration of the Collector on 29-4-54. The Collector submitted his report which was noted upon by the office of the Commissioner first in Hindi. Then an office note in English, which has been quoted above was appended to the Hindi noting and the learned Commissioner simply wrote down the word 'Approved' We have no hesitation in observing that the learned Commissioner did not at all apply his mind to the circumstances of the case nor did he care to grant a hearing to the various claimants. A ready made solution was presented before him in the office note and it was readily 'Approved'. This procedure, or to be more accurate, absence of proper procedure, is clearly wrong. As has been observed elsewhere, it is not enough that justice should be done but that there ought to be an outward demonstration of its being so done. We would therefore under sec. 12 of the Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949, set aside the order of the Commis-sioner,Kotah dated 31-8-54 and remand the case back to him with the direction that it should be reheard and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above.;