- (1.) THE circumstances which have given rise to application in revision may be stated in brief as below.
(2.) IT appears that the Jagir Inspector, Udaipur, in his inspection note dated 9/10th May 1956 reported to the Dy. Collector Jagir that the tank known as Manoharsagar in village Sardargarh of the resumed Thikana Sardargarh had ever since been used by the cultivators of the near by villages for irrigation purposes and that the same tank as well as the peta lands had not been taken possession of by the village Patwari inspite of the fact that these were not the personal property of the jagirdar. The Dy. Collector jagir, thereupon, sent a directive to the Tehsildar that until further orders the tank in question should be kept under 'kurki' and a report about the land etc. may be sent to him. The Thikana approached the Dy. Collector Jagir to reconsider his order on the main ground that the tank belonged exclusively to the Thikana, but without any success. Afterwards a representation was made to the Jagir Commissioner in which it was specifically urged that the Dy. Collector Jagir had without hearing the applicant or making any enquiry in this behalf ordered the attachment of the tank as well as the 'peta' lands belonging to the Thikana which was illegal. IT was prayed - that the order of the Dy. Collector be vacated. The Jagir Commissioner by his order dated 3. 7. 56, does not appear to have given any direction about the tank in question but simply sent a copy of the representation of the applicant to the Dy. Collector Jagir with the remark that if the Jagirdar had unlawfully taken possession of any land he should be treated as a trespasser and regular proceedings be initiated against him in accordance with the law on the subject. The Dy. Collector on receipt of this order for reasons which do not appear on the record, vacated his previous order about attachment and directed the Tehsildar to make enquiries in accordance with law. IT is not clear from this file as to what further action was taken by the Tehsildar in this matter. IT, however, appears that in the meantime an order of the Revenue Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, No. F. 4 (543) RB/54, dated 21. 7. 56. reached the Tehsildar which, on being translated into English, reads as below: - "subject: - About continuing irrigation by cultivators from the tank Manoharsagar in village Sardargarh. I am directed to request that in accordance with this department Circular letter No. 23590 F. 4 (563)RB/54, dated 6. 12-55 the lands of the cultivators of village Sardargarh which were being irrigated from Manoharsagar in the past should continue to be irrigated as such from it. On receipt of this order, the Tehsildar, enclosing a copy of the aforesaid order of the Revenue Secretary, informed the Thikana on 8. 8. 56 that the villagers shall be allowed to irrigate their fields from this tank as heretofore and that the Thikana should not interfere with it. On 13. 8. 56 the same tehsildar further clarified his previous direction to the thikana by informing it through his letter dated 14. 8. 56 that item 5 of circular order No. 23590 dated 6. 12. 55 referred to by the Revenue Secretary in his letter dated 21. 7. 50 had laid down that such tanks in thikanas as were used by the cultivators for irrigation purposes vested in the Government after the resumption of the jagirs under sec. 23 of the Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act and that as tank in question was used for irrigation purposes, the thikana should surrender its control over this tank and place at the disposal of the Patwari all the means for the opening of the 'moris'. It appears that she thikana did not accept this communication from the Tehsildar which was, however, pasted on the Garh. This Communication issued by the Tehsildar which is dated 14. 8. 58 has now been challenged before us in revision A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Government Advocate as to the maintainability of this revision in this court. It is urged that the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act of 1953 and the subsequent amendments made therefore do not contain any statutory provision empowering the Revenue Board to entertain revision against any order passed by the Jagir Commissioner, his subordinate or any other revenue officer or a revenue court acting or purporting to act in respect of any matter which is required to be settled or dealt with under the authority of the said Act. It was also argued that in fact there was original order of the Tehsildar about this tank and the impugned communication issued by him is more or less of the nature of a 'tamil', in pursuance of the Government order received by him against which no reversion can lie. It was also pointed out that the Tehsildar acted in his administrative capacity as an agent of the Government and not as a Revenue Officer or Revenue Court and all that he did was to ask the Thikana to comply with the orders of the Government in respect of this tank as contained in the aforesaid circular orders of the Govt. in Revenue Department. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, emphasized that the Tehsildar acted in this case purely at a revenue officer and the order given by him was one or purported to be one under sec. 23 of the Act which he was not competent to give and that it was a fit case in which the Board of Revenue in the exercise of its inherent powers can and ought to interfere. We have carefully read the impugned letter issued by the Tehsildar. It is clear beyond doubt that the Tehsildar received a general circular order dated 6. 12. 55 issued by the Government in Revenue Department about the vesting of all rights over irrigation tanks in the Government on the resumption of an estate wherein such tanks existed and subsequently the Government again sent an order dated 21. 7. 56 specifically about the disputed tank in village Sardargarh. The Tehsildar informed the applicant that henceforth the thikana shall cease to have any control over the tank which in consequence of its resumption had become government property. Surely this letter read in the context of the Government orders received by the Tehsildar was issued by him as an executive officer in his administrative capacity and not either as a Revenue Officer or a Revenue Court. It is true that the Board of Revenue is the highest court of appeal, revision and reference but it can interfere with orders of its subordinates in revision only if such orders are given by them as a revenue officer or revenue court as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955. Besides there does not exist any provision of law in the Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act empowering the Board to exercise its revisory powers in respect of any matter dealt with or arising out of proceedings under any section of the Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act. We also do not find ourselves competent to exercise our inherent powers as a court of revision because, as urged by the learned Government Advocate, section 46 of the Act clearly lays down that save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil court or revenue court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act. Even if for the sake of argument, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant of that the Tehsildar dealt with this matter viz. the taking over the tank in question, as a revenue officer, we think that the revisional jurisdiction of the Revenue Board is barred by section 46 of the Act. It is significant to point out that reading between the lines, the scheme of the Act seems to be that in matters relating to the resumption of Jagir and other allied matters, the legislature restricted the statutory rights of the parties about the filing of an appeal, review, reference and revision. In fact it is only under a few sections of the Act that a single appeal against the decision of the Jagir Commissioner is provided under sec. 39 of the Act to the Board while there is no provision about revision, second appeal, review or reference in the Act. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention of learned Government advocate should prevail and this revision application be rejected. We order accordingly. .;