- (1.) ALAM Shar Khan and other applicants have filed this revision petition under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue, Act, 1956 against Todarmal and the State Government respondents and against the decision of the Khud Kasht Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 6. 8. 1964 rejecting the applicant's appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Jagir Jaipur dated 12. 1. 1963 regarding allotment of Khudkasht land.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Todarmal was a jagirdar whose jagir was resumed. He applied for allotment of Khudkasht land and he was allotted 120 bighas of unoccupied land from the 'siway chack' land of his own jagir land. The respondents claiming themselves as tenants of some of the claimed lands filed objection against this order of allotment. The Jagir Commissioner remanded the case to the Deputy Collector, Jagir for considering the objections of the applicants. The Deputy Collector, Jagir by his order dated 12. 12. 63 cancelled certain Khasra numbers of land to the extent of 5. 2 Bighas on the ground that they were occupied by the respondents. In an appeal against that order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir filed by the respondents, Khudkasht Commissioner set aside the order of the Dy. Collector, Jagir by holding that the non applicants were merely trespassers and not tenants. The land was clearly recorded as the siway chack land of the jagir and was allotable to the respondents. It is against this order passed in appeal by the Khudkasht Commissioner, Jaipur that the present applicants have filed this revision petition under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent that order passed by the Khudkasht Commissioner under sec. 39 sub-sec. 4 of the Jagir Act was final. There could be neither revision nor appeal against such order. He further contended that the Khudkasht Commissioner was not a Revenue Officer within the meaning of sec. 5 sub-sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the Board cannot exercise any power of superintendence and control over this functionary under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In support he cited Hukamsingh versus State of Rajasthan R. R. D. 1963 page 312. The Government Advocate as well as the counsel for the petitioner attempted to repell this preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent by saying that although khudkasht Commissioner was admittedly appointed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, but he was nevertheless a Revenue Officer as he was called upon to deal with various matters relating to khudkasht and khatedari rights of the tenants and the land holders from time to time under the Jagir Act. They therefore argued that these are essentially tenancy matters and the Khudkast Commissioner therefore acts like a Revenue Officer. The function of the Khudkasht Commissioner is distinguishable from that of the Jagir Commissioner. In case the Jagir Commissioner decided an inter se dispute between the respondent jagirdars for allotment of land and the non applicants who claimed themselves as tenants of the land alloted. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and with regard to the preliminary objection perused the record. There is no doubt that the Khudkasht Commissioner who passed this order in appeal with regard to the allotment of land to the respondent ex-jagirdar was appointed under the Jagir Act, 1952. He was clearly not appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The point for determination is whether as argued by the Government Advocate and the counsel for the non applicants, the Khudkasht Commissioner could be termed as a Revenue officer merely because he was called upon to decide certain questions of allotment of Khudkasht land under the Jagir Act because these were essentially, as alleged, tenancy matters. In Hukamsingh versus the State of Rajasthan, the learned Members of the Board have gone into the question of the definition of a revenue officer with reference to section 5 sub-sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therein, they have clearly pointed out that the Revenue officer is one who is employed in the business of revenue and rent or in maintaining revenue records. They have clearly rejected the proposition of law forwarded in that appeal that the Jagir Commissioner while deciding questions of Khudkasht land of the jagirdar could be construed as a revenue officer by the Board so as to enable the Board to exercise the power under sec. 9 of the superintendence and control. The Khudkasht Commissioner here as appointed under the Jagir Act cannot be said to be an officer dealing with revenue, rent and maintenance of revenue record business and therefore in my opinion by no stretch of imagination be can be termed as a Revenue officer within the meaning of sec. 5 sub-sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Khudkasht Commissioner here had to perform a statutory function laid down in chapter IV of the Jagir Act, 1952 for allotment of Khudkasht land under sec. 19 of the aforesaid Act. He has only to determine categories of land from which allotment in Khudkasht could be made to an ex-jagirdar. He has clearly made this allotment of land under sec. 19 sub-sec. 4 out of the unoccupied land within the jagir area. In order to determine what was an unoccupied area the Khudkasht Commissioner found as a fact that the applicants were merely trespassers and not tenants of the land as asserted by them as the land was clearly recorded in the settlement record then current as the siway chack land in possession of the thikana. In discharging this function on the basis of the revenue record an enquiry was condcted by the' Deputy Collector, Jagir. It cannot be said that the Khudkasht Commissioner acted as a revenue officer within the meaning of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He clearly discharged this duty under the provisions contained in the Jagir Act. For the reasons given above I am clearly of the opinion that the Khudkasht Commissioner cannot be considered as the Revenue officer and as such this Board following the ruling referred to above cannot exercise its power of superintendence and control over the functionary appointed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The result is that this preliminary objection of the petitioner must prevail and this revision petition must fail. . ;