- (1.) A, S B. of this Board has referred, the following question under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, for opinion, by order dated 4-9-74. This reference has been made in 13 cases. Another S. B. of this Board finding that the point involved in the 12 cases that came up before it, was the same as the point raised by the aforesaid order dated 4-9-74, ordered on 30-10-74, that these 12 cases may also be listed for hearing before the L. B. to be constituted for opinion on the aforesaid reference on 4-9-74.
(2.) THE question referred is : - "whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue is justified in exercising the delegated powers under section 83 or section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, specially when a second appeal under section 76 (d) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act would ultimately lie against a final order of the Collector under Rule 17a. " For the purpose of deciding the reference the following facts are relevant. Land was allotted to the non applicants under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Medium and Minor Projects Government Lands Allotment) Rules, 1968 The lands are covered by an irrigation project in District Chittorgarh. Collector, Chittorgarh, believing that the allotment was not in accordance with the rules, proceeded to cancel it. He issued notice under Rule 17a of the aforesaid Rules to be hereafter called the Rules, to the non-applicants to show cause why allotment should not be cancelled. It appears that the Collector had also informed the Government that the allotment was not in order and on letter of requisition from the Board of Revenue, Collector, Chittorgarh sent 350 cases relating to allotment under the Rules In some of these 350 cases, the non applicant allottees had appeared, arguments were heard and the cases were adjourned for orders by the learned Collector. In the other cases only notices under Rule 17a were issued. Arguments had not been heard. A batch of 9 cases from out of the above 350 were decided by a S. B. on 19-6-74 holding that the revisions are incompetent as the remedy available before the learned Collector is not yet exhausted and further that an appeal would lie before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the orders of the learned Collector and a second appeal would lie before the Board of Revenue against the orders of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. It was further held that the Collector should be directed to decide these cases in accordance with law. When the 13 cases, to be hereafter called the 1st batch, covered by the order of reference dated 4-9-74 came up for hearing before the Hon'ble S. B and arguments were heard, the learned Member concluded that an important question of law has emerged on account of the decision dated 9-6-74 in the 9 cases-batch because, in his opinion, the Board of Revenue had requisitioned these cases in exercise of its power of general superintendence and control under section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and in exercise of powers under section 83 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act delegated by the State Government to the Board. He therefore, referred the above mentioned question to a Larger Bench. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and the amicus curiae Shri N. S. Chordia, Shri M. L. Jain, Shri 3. N. Pareek and Shri Ved Vart and examined the matter.
(3.) WE may at the outset consider objection by Shri N. S. Chordia to the maintainability of these references. He argued that in another case another Bench of the Board has referred to a Larger Bench for its opinion, the question whether Rule 17a of these Rules is ultra-vires of the Rule making power of the Government and hence the giving of opinion on the present revision should be defected till the disposal of that reference Vires of Rule 17a are not material for deciding the reference before us. On carefully reading the question referred to us, it will be observed that its decision does not depend upon the decision on the question alleged to have been referred by the other Bench. Whether Rule 17a is ultra-vires or not is not material for our present purpose because the determination of the question referred depends not on the vires of Rule 17a, but on the alleged provision in section 76 (d) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act providing for a second appeal against the order of the Collector under Rule 17a. It is not therefore necessary to defer the giving of opinion in this reference on account of the fact that a reference is said to have been made regarding the vires of Rule 17a. It was also argued by Shri Chordia that the reference is incompetent because a revision under section 83 can be filed only when the impugned order fulfils the requirement of the term "case decided. " We are unable to accept this contention because in this respect there is clear distinction between the powers given by section 84 and those given by section 83. The Board is, while exercising powers given by sec 84, required to see, amongst other things, that the impugned decision qualifies as case decided, but is not required to ascertain this, while exercising powers under section 83 delegated to it by the State Government. The language of the two sections is different as can be noticed on a bare perusal of the sections which are being reproduced below for ready reference. "section 83. Power of Government to call for records and revise order : - The State Government may call for the record of any non judicial proceedings not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. " "section 84 - Power of the Board to call for records and revise orders. The Board may call for the record of any case of a judicial nature or connected with settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or htm by law. or to have exercised jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its or his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. " It will be observed that while the State Government can call for the record of any non judicial proceedings, not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, the Board can call for record under sec. 84, if, amongst other things, the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it or him by law. ;