- (1.) This revision which has wrongly been described as appeal arises out of the following circumstances - - Motimal applied for grant of a Patta under the Marwar Patta Act, in respect of the land in dispute on 17.8.48. After inspecting the site and making necessary enquiries the Patta Committee rejected Motimals request on 10.10.58, on the ground that the land in dispute is situated within a chowk which is used by the residents of the locality as a congregating place in marriages and condolences. It was also observed by the Patta Committee that the request if granted would lead to congestion. Motimal went up in appeal against this decision before the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who by his order dated 25.5.54 remanded the case for further hearing. The Patta Committee again impacted the site and by its order dated 16 -14 -54 rejected Motimals request. Motimal went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur who by his decision, dated 24.6.55 granted a Patta for a strip of land measuring 15" x 2" as against the original demand of Motimal, of 15" x 3". Mohanmals has filed this revision against this order designating it as an appeal. Motimal has accordingly field his cross -objection. There being no provision for second appeal under the Marwar Patta Act, Mohanmals appeal has been treated as a revision and Motimals cross -objection has been sub -joined with it.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. It is significant to observe in this connection that as early as 1936 Mohanmal applied for a Patta of the chowk in which the land in dispute is situated and the then Public Works Minister of the former Jodhpur State rejected his application on 11.2.36 with the following observation. "I inspected the site on 3.2.36 and agree with the opinion of the Patta Officer and the majority of the municipal sub -committee that no Patta should be given permanently for the land in this chowk as it is not desirable to allow the open land to be built upon." A review of this order was applied for before the Judicial Minister of the former Jodhpur State and that too was rejected on 6.2.37 with the observation that "the plot of land is a rectangular piece manifestly forming part of a chowk or a public road which it would be "inexpedient in public interest to be allowed to be built upon or to remain otherwise than a portion of the public chowk." As laid down in sec. 16 of the Marwar Patta Act, all disputes regarding the renewal of a Patta shall be decided on the basis of occupation or possession as well as from the point of view of public interest. The term public interest has not beee defined in the Act and it would be rather difficult to attempt an accurate or precise definition of this term. Every case shall have to judged on its own merits. Broadly speaking it can be safely inferred that if the grant of a Patta of particular plot of land is likely to interfere with the reasonable amenities and conveniences of the residents of that locality which, they had been enjoying for a considerable period then it would not be in public interest to grant the Patta. In the present case, we find that as early as 1936 the question arose as to to grant of Patta in respect of the chowk in which the land in dispute lies. The Patta Officer and all the authorities in the then set up were unanimously of the opinion that public interest demanded that no Patta should be granted. In the present set up the members of the Patta Committee on two distinct occasions came to the same opinion. The learned Additional Commissioner has however taken a different view and the reasons, to quote from his own judgment, are as follows - - "In Jodhpur city and elsewhere chabutris are regarded as necessity of a house. One finds such chabutris almost in front of every house.........On account of such chabutris there is a great congestion in the thoroughfare and also in the bye -lanes. Still the fact remains that every house holder regards chabutris as very necessary for his house......... The chowk is 33" x 22" and this covers an area of 725 sq. ft. Even if a strip of the kind desired by the appellant is given over to Kishan Chand even then there would be left a chowk covering 600 sq. ft............ I do not think it can be seriously contended that the mourners or the merry makers have the right to disturb the tranquillity of the house by carrying their mournings or rejoicings on the very nose of neighbour. For this purpose a strip would offer the desired protection. Having in view the wishes of the neighbours I reduce the breadth of the chabutri to be given from 3" to 2." It would be apparent from these grounds that there was some confused thinking in the mind of the learned additional Commissioner. If chabutris in the city of Jodhpur really present a problem obviously the safe course would be not to make the problem still wrose by adding to the number of chubutris. If the views of the neighbours were considered potent enough to justify a reduction in the dimensions of the land for which patta was demanded by Motimal the force of the objection automatically stands recognised though impliedly. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that this land would offer a protection against mourners or merry makers. It is difficult for us to appreciate this line of argument. Even Motimal did not suggest this in his application, as the only ground on which he seeks the patta is that it would provide some relief against water collection in his vicinity. Thus it is clear that the lower appelate court has advanced no valid or justifiable grounds for overriding the recommendation; and decisions of the Patta Committee which in the circumstances of the ease appear to have been through out uniform and consistent. The grounds on which the learned Additional Commissioner interfered appear to our mind unjustifiable. We would, therefore allow this revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The order passed by the Patta Committee shall stand confirmed. The so -called cross -objection filed by Motimal automatically fails.;