- (1.) BOTH these revisions arise out of a single appellate decision of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jodhpur in a case relating to entries in the settlement records and shall be disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. During the settlement operations, a dispute arose between the parties as regards the status of the applicants. The Settlement Officer by his decision dated 12-5-49 Fard Tanaza decided the status of the applicant as Shikmi. Unfortunately, the decision was not couched in a happy phraseology. The wordings are as follows: - "shikmis of this type having a standing of more than three years cannot be ejected under the provisions of the new Ordinance. " It is however clear that this decision was interpreted to mean that the applicants were to be treated as Shikmis and they were to be so recorded accordingly. In 1952, the opposite party applied before the Record Officer that the applicants should be recorded as Sijaries relying upon some departmental circular letter, dated 3-12-49. The Record Officer rejected this application on the ground that as the matter had already been decided by a Fard Tanaza by his predecessor and as no appeal was filed against it, and as all the records had been completed, he had no jurisdiction to re-examine the case. The opposite party went up in appeal against this decision before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who allowed the same and directed in effect, that the applicants should be entered as Sijaries. Hence this revision. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner violated the elementary principles of natural justice inasmuch as he passed the order against the applicants without affording them an opportunity to put up their cases before him. It has|been admitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that on notice was issued to the applicants by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It is however contended on his behalf that as the matter related only to making an entry in the settlement record in pursuance of a Government decision, no notice to the applicants was called for. We are not prepared to subscribe to this view. The decision awarded by the lower appellate court positively affects the applicants as it materially and substantially changes their status and consequently their rights. To argue that such a decision can be taken at the back of the party concerned is clearly untenable. As regards the merits well, we have no hesitation in observing that the decision of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner is manifestly wrong. It was open to the opposite party to challenge the decision given on Fard Tanaza No appeal was filed by him against this decision. No Government decision can charge the existing law. The term Shikmi, is defined in Qanun Mal, Mewar 1947 and the same can neither be restricted nor widened by any executive order. Secondly no Government decision can have any retrospective effect nor can it effect the decisions taken in Judicial cases. The order cannot be upheld as there has not only been a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, but he has also assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in him under the law. We would therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and restore that of the Record Officer. .;