- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, against an appellate decision of the Additional Settlement Commissi-cner,rajasthan,jaipur,dated 21-10-1953 in a case relating to entries in the parcha chakbandi.
(2.) THE circumstances that gave rise to this revision are that on 14-6-1951 Shri Ladu Ram Joshi, Kamdar Thikana Chitora, presented the following application before the Settlement Officer - "sidha Shri Mahakma Bandobast Swai Jaipur Jog likhi kamdar Thikana Chitora ke mujro banchavsaji apranch bid thikana Chitora ki zamin ke jisko galti se bandobast he Amin ne zamindaron ke nam darz kardi. Yah galati hai. Tamam Zamindar mojud hain janch karlijavey aur jo zamin zamindaron ke nam Darz hogai hai uski durusti farmai jaoe va thikana ke nam darz farmaiyave. " It appears that some persons were present at the time of the submission of this application and they were examined by the Settlement Officer. It was, however, Subsequently, realised by the Settlement Officer that all persons who were going to be affected in the case were not present before him hence forwarded the papers to the Assistant Settlement Officer with the remarks that he should proceed to the spot and make enquiries there. THE papers reached the A. S. O. on 16-6-1951. On 15-8-1951 the A. S. O. proceeded to the spot. THE Kamdar Thikana Chitora submitted a statement before him containing 10 columns. Columns Nos. l,2,3and 4 relate to the khasra number,area,and khatedar tenant of the land in dispute Column No. 5 was headed as Tasdiq Moqa. Column No. 6 was the heading of the 'entry to be made'. In column No. 5 of the statement appear thumb impressions and in column No. 6 the A S. O. passed an order that the land in dispute be entered as maqbuza Thikana in the final order that was passed by the A. S. O. It was laid down that the Thikana may be informed of the decision and that it was not necessary to inform the Kashtkars. THE tenants went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer,who held the same to be barred by limitation. Never-the-less he made some amendments in the decision of the lower court. Both the parties filed appeals before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, THE appeal of the Thikana was allowed and that of the tenants was rejected. Hence this revision. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record. The main contention of the applicants is that the lower appellate courts were not justified in treating the appeal as barred by limitation. In view of the order that we are making in the case we consider it unnecessary to examine the question of limitation or merits of the case at length at this stage. The procedure adopted by the A. S. O. in the case betrays a colossal ignorance of the elementary principles of law and natural justice. The application presented by the Thikana on 14-5-1951 has been quoted above in extenso by us to show that it was too vague and general to be of any significance. The Settlement Officer who entertained it should have either out-right rejected it or demanded further and better particulars from the applicant so as to reveal clearly the nature of the dispute and the persons who were to be involved in it. In this application no khasra numbers nor the names of the tenants against whom the request: was made were entered. This application was presented before the Settlement Officer after! the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. As land down in item 5 group F, Schedule I of the Act,such applications are triable by an Assistant Record Officer at the time of survey and record operations. It appears that the case was transferred to the A. S. O. under this provision of law. The A. S. O. did not even care to observe the elementary principles of natural justice while proceeding with this case. No attempts were made to ascertain the opposite-parties in the case. No notices were issued to them nor any other efforts were made to secure their attendance. The first order passed by the A. S. O. in the case is dated 16-6-1951 wherein it was laid down that the case be registered and be put up on the spot during the tour. The next order is dated 15-8-1951 and that to on the statement (Ford Ikhtilaf) produced by the Thikna. No prior intimation was sent of any of the persons. The decisions were awarded on the basis that the tenants signified their willingness to the removal of their names. To statements of there persons are available in the record. As pointed out about there are only some thumb impressions in column No. 5 of the statement and what was stated by them is conspicuous by its absence therefrom. In the first place it should have been clear to the A. S. O. that there could be no valid ground for joining all the tenants of the village in one single proceeding. No common question of fact were involved as the case of each individual depended upon its own merits as regards his possession. We cannot help observing that the A. S. O, disregarded the express provisions of law on the subject and followed the dictates of the Thikana in the matter of procedure presumably under the temptation that he was speared most of the writing work as he got a ready mead statement from the Thikana. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has frankly conceded his inability to support the procedure followed be the A. S. O. His contention is that the result was, however, justified inasmuch as the tenants had actually entered into a compromise with the Thikana. This argument is clearly untenable. The question of deciding a case on compromise can arise only when the procedure prescribed by law has been followed in the trial of the case. A compromise to be effective is to be in accordance with the law. Further as laid down in Rules 114 of the Rules framed under Sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, applications are also to be tried in the manner prescribed for suits as far as possible. Thus the procedure adopted in the case is the very negation of all legal principles and procedure. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the orders of all the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the first instance with the direction that the Thikana should be required to file a separate application against the tenant or tenants of each khata and the same be thereafter tried and decided afresh in accordance with law. .;