- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 26 Rajas than Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 against an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 29. 4. 54 in a case relating to entries in the parcha chak-bandi.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. WE feel constrained to observe that the manner in which the case was handled by the subordinate officers reflects no credit upon them but discloses a deplorable state of affairs. The Assistant Settlement Officer by his decision dated 2. 3. 51 decided that Khasra No. 398 and 401/1 should be entered in the pracha chakbandi of the applicant on the ground that the opposite party Chauthmal had himself admitted that the applicant was eligible for the same. On that date it appears that the Assistant Settlement Officer had no means of ascertaining the actual area that was taken up in the road and hence he directed his staff to carry out proceedings in that behalf. Ultimately on 17. 5. 51 the same Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order which in fact meant that the decision dated 2. 3. 51 regarding Khasra Nos. 398 and 401/1 be reversed and that these numbers be entered in the parcha chakbandi of the opposite party. The applicant was informed neither of the order dated 2. 3. 51 nor of the subsequent order dated 17. 5. 51. It appears that the changes in the parcha chakbandi were eventually carried out in accordance with the instructions of the Assistant Settlement Officer contained in his so called order dated 17. 5. 51, and on 15. 4. 53 the applicant coming to know of these changes appeared before the Assistant Settlement Officer and requested that the order dated 17. 5. 51 being ex parte should be set aside and he be given an opportunity of being heard in the case, The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the applicant had filed no appeal against the order dated 2. 3. 51 and hence his application had no substance. The Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Commissioner before whom first and second appeals were filed by the applicant contented themselves merely with the repetition of this argument and hence this revision before us. It may be observed that none of the subordinate officers cared to ascertain that the order dated 2. 3. 51 was in any way detrimental or adverse to the interests of the applicant. In fact it granted to him in full what was demanded by him in his statement. To hold that the applicant should have challenged this order is something which defies our comprehension. A party can appeal only against that order against which he feels aggrieved. There is no provision in law for challenging that order with which he is entirely in agreement. The subordinate officers should have gone into the case rather deeply and a superficial smattering as is evident in the case was wholly undesirable. The order dated 17-5. 51 is not an elucidation or classification of the order dated 2. 3. 51 but militates against it as far as the case of the applicant is concerned. The Assistant Settlement Officer should have been thankful to the applicant for having brought this glaring irregularity to his notice which may have enabled him to rectify a mistake which appears to have crept in through negligence or oversight. On the other hand, he adopted an attitude which finds no justification for reasons stated above. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 17. 5. 51 as also the decisions of the Settlement Officer and the Additional Settlement Commissioner upholding that order and direct that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 2. 3. 51 be complied with and the name of the applicant be entered in pracha chakbandi as against Khasra Nos. 398 and 401/1 village Razoli, Tehsil Lalsot. .;