- (1.) THIS reference has been received from the Collector, Pali, under sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
(2.) ACCORDING to the Collector, the facts leading to this reference are that Khasra No. 182 measuring 1963 bighas situated in the village Gagruda, Tehsil Sojat which was classified as Barani 1 in the Nisal Bandobast has actually been used as a 'jor' since the time it was included in the Samdari Jagir. In the Girdawari also it has been entered as 'jor', except for an area of 150 bighas which has been recorded under the cultivation of one Paney Karan Singh since 2012. The Jagir was resumed in the Smt. year 2013; since then the grass of this 'jor' has been auctioned annually. On a recommendation received from the Tehsildar, Sojat, and the Allotment Committee, the then Collector, Pali, vide his order dated 2. 7. 52, approved the allotment of 637 bighas of land (450 bighas according to the letter on record) to a Cooperative Society consisting of landless persons for cultivation. Subsequently, however, on a report being received that the allottees were not landless, the Collector modified his order and directed the tehsildar on 13. 7. 62, to make an enquiry whether the allottees were landless or not. It was, further, added in the order that the land might be allotted to landless persons whether they were Members of the Society or not, as the rains had set in. On 25. 10. 62, the Tehsildar, Sojat, reported to the Collector that since 1430 bighas of the land in khasra No. 182 in the village Gagurda had been used as a 'jor' all this time, it attracted the provisions of sec. 16 (xiii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which prohibits the grant of khatedari rights in land falling within the boundaries of a Government agricultural or grass farm. Having examined the question, the Collector falt that the question whether this land falls within the definition of a Government grass farm needed clarification. Accordingly, he made this reference to the Board of Revenue under sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He further, added that there were several other 'jors' in this district, some of which were being managed by the Forest Deptt. while the others were being managed by the Revenue Deptt. These Jors were being used for grazing or cutting grass which was made available for fodder and came very handy during the periods of scarcity. It was stated by the Collector that the Board's decision in the matter would indicate the steps to be taken in respect of these other Jors also. In the meantime, orders were issued to all the Tehsildars to stay allotment of land falling in the 'jors'. I have had the benefit of hearing the Govt. Advocate as well as Shri Jainarain Bhatt on behalf of the contending parties. A preliminary objection was raised by Shri Bhatt that the matter under reference related to allotment of land which was a non-judicial matter and, therefore, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. It was, further, submitted that since the matter lay under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, it would not attract the provisions of sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. A reference could, therefore, only be made under sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It was, further, argued that the powers to make a reference under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were conferred on the Collector by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Amendment Act (18) of 1963 which came into force on 15. 10. 1963 and as the reference was made on 30. 11. 1962, it was incompetent. The learned Govt. Advocate concedes that the powers to make reference under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were conferred on the Collector by Act 18 of 1963 which came into force on 15. 10. 1963. Nevertheless, he contends that since the reference related to the interpretation of sec. 16 (xiii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the same had been rightly made under sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was, however, conceded by him that the Collector could make a reference under sec. 232 only in respect of a case or proceeding decided by or pending before any revenue court subordinate to him, after he had satisfied himself, that the order passed or the proceeding taken by such court should be varied, cancelled or reversed. If the Collector was so satisfied, then alone he could refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board. It is obvious that while making the present reference, the learned Collector has over-looked the provisions of sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The order which is sought to be varied or cancelled was not passed by any revenue court subordinate to the Collector, but it was passed by the Collector himself. Moreover, the Collector has not recorded his own opinion in the matter. The learned Govt. Advocate, therefore, concedes that this reference under sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not competent. He also concedes that the matter relates to allotment of land which is a non-judicial matter and the reference, therefore, if any is sought to be made, would lie to the Govt. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that this reference is incompetent and the same may be returned to the Collector for such action as he may deem proper in the light of the above observations. It may further, be added that the powers of review vest in the revenue courts under sec. 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and sec. 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Collector may invoke them if he considers it fit to do so in the circumstances of the case in accordance with the provisions laid down therein. . ;