- (1.) THIS is revision under sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 15. 12. 54, setting aside the appellate order of the Collector, Jhunjhunu in a case relating to recovery of arrears of rent.
(2.) THE opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice and hence the case was heard ex parte. After examining the record, I feel constrained to observe that this case provides a nice illustration of denial of justice proceeding from the failure of the Revenue Officer to study the law which he is required to administer within his charge. On 5. 12. 53 one Dwarka Dass through Rameshwar Lal Mathur applied to the Tehsildar Jhunjhunu with the allegations that Dwarka Dass was a pujari of 921 bighas kham land of Mandir Shri Mataji in Mukandgarh town, that there were about 50 tenants of the land who were refusing to pay their rents and hence one murat be deputed to make collections on behalf of Dwarkadass. THE Tehsildar, without caring to ascertain the law which should be held applicable in the case or without caring to conform even to the elementary principles of natural justice which demand a hearing of the parties concerned as a condition prior to making a decision, ordered that the Bhandari should arrange for the deputation of a murat. THE tenants refused to make any payments to Dwarka Dass and alleged that they were tenants of Thakur Lal Singh. THE Murat finding success in his mission impossible requested for the deputation of police force. However, the murat appears to have succeeded in realising Rs. 817/-/9 from some of the tenants, others having refused flatly. THEreafter the question arose as to how this money should be dealt with. THE tenants had stated clearly that no part of it should be given to Dwarka Dass as according to them he had no right to receive rents from them. Thakur Lal Singh claimed the entire amount for himself and so did Dwarka Dass. THE Tehsildar relying on a decision of the Board, but without making any intelligent effort to appreciate the points decided by the Board, held that Dwarka Dass be given Rs. 168/8/3 being the amount received from five persons against whom he had obtained a decree previously for arrears of rent which was eventually confirmed by the Board in the judgment referred to above. Dwarka Dass went up in appeal before the Collector Jhunjhunu who held that Lal Singh had no title to receive any amount realised by murat and hence Dwarka Dass was allowed to have the entire amount. THEreupon Lal Singh went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who held that there was no general refusal to pay rent by the tenants and even if there was, the Collector alone had the authority to take action under sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act and hence the order of the Collector was set aside. Dwarka Dass has come up in revision against this order. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has frankly conceded his inability to show any law in support of the action taken by the Tehsildar. In fact the order passed by the Tehsildar on 5. 12. 53 is the very negation of a legal order. It is a rudimentary maxim of law, which the Tehsildar may be presumed to he conscious of, that a party cannot be condemned without being given an opportunity of being heard. The deputation of murat to collect rents is extremely arbitrary and unjustifiable. It is the binding duty of every Revenue Officer who has to interpret law in the discharge of his functions to study carefully the provisions of the statute. As laid down in sec. 121 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act recovery of arrears of cash rent is to be covered by the provision of secs. 64 to 67 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. As laid down in sec. 65 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act an arrear of rent shall be recoverable by a suit or by notice the rough the Tehsildar in accordance with the provisions of this Act These provisions are to be found in sec. 97 of the Act. Thus it becomes clear that an arrear of rent may be realised either through a suit or by a notice through the Tehsildar. The application presented on 5. 12. 53 is admittedly not a plaint. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that it may be treated as plaint under sec. 97 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. This argument too is untenable. As laid down in sub-sec. (5) if tenant appears and contests the claim, the notice shall, on payment of proper court fee, be deemed to be a suit for arrears of rent and if the Tehsildar is not competent to try the same it shall be forwarded to the Nazim. In other words, the application for issue of a notice after the tenant contests his liability shall cease to be an application and must be proceeded with further as a suit. Neither the Tehsildar nor the learned Collector bestowed any serious consideration upon the case, with the result that both of them came to absurd conclusions. The learned Additional Commissioner mode some efforts to examine the law. Probably it was argued before him that sec. 126 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act applies in the case and hence he gave his finding upon it. Other provisions of law do not appear to have been referred to before him. But nevertheless the conclusion arrived at by him is correct. There is no sanction for the procedure followed by the Tehsildar in realising the amount of Rs. 817/- from the tenants in this high-handed manner. The applicant should have been put to prosecute a suit against each one of the tenant and in case a decree was given as a result of the trial then only could execution proceedings have been taken out. If he had followed a correct procedure the difficulty which he eventually faced in disposing of the realized amount would not have appeared at all. The amount itself and the person entitled to it would have been clear from the decree itself. The learned Additional Commissioner was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the Collector or the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction in the matter. The tenants are entitled to get back all the amounts that have been realised from them illegally by a murat of the Tehsil. With these observations, the revision is hereby rejected. .;