- (1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this second appeal may be stated as follows - On 19. 9. 37 a Hindi order was issued by the Mahakma Khas of the former Mewar State to the effect that one Mosal Jamnalal Muafidar had presented a petition against Rao Manohar Singh alleging his wrongful dispossession respect of his muafi land, that Rao Manohar Singh when questioned replied that Jamna Lal could not produce any document or Patta to establish his muafi as he could produced only a "uthantri" which could at the most show possession that there was another muafi land as well in possession of Jamnalal and an enquiry was needed in that case. It may be made clear at this stage that Jamnalal complained about wrongful dispossession from some other piece of land against Rao Manohar Singh other than that in dispute. What became of that complaint cannot at all be gathered from these proceedings. This enquiry was directed against the other muafi land situated in village Aiad. During the course of this enquiry the Tehsildar Girwa reported on 30. 6. 38, that this muafi land measuring 8 bighas and 2 biswas should be made khalsa as Jamnalal failed to produce any Patta. But considering the long possession it was suggested that he may be made the Kharam holder. No final orders could be passed on this report and in the meanwhile Rao Manohar Singh applied to the Tehsildar that the land may be given to him for cultivation pending decision of the case. This request was granted and Rao Manohar Singh was given possession of the land after he had given an undertaking in writing on 10. 7. 40, that he would not appose possession of the land to Jamnalal if Kharam be eventually sanctioned in his name.
(2.) ON the formation of Rajasthan. The Revenue Secretary vide his letter No F 4 (370)Rev. 1/50 dated 7. 2. 51 addressed to the Commissioner, directed that enquiry into muafi cases was a huge task which could be properly attended to during settlement operations and till then all the pending cases should be consigned to records. Muafi lands which are under attach-ment should he restored and the incomes that may be in deposit should also be given to them. ON the strength of this decision of the Government of Rajasthan Kanhiyalal a nephew of Jamnalal applied to the Tehsildar for restoration of his land along with the deposited income. The Tehsildar agreed with this request and sought sanction from the S. D. O. The S. D. O. agreed with the recommendation of the Tehsildar and put up a detailed note to the Collector on 27. 7. 54. The Collector accepted the recommendations made by the S. D. O. and issued orders to the Tehsildar directing him to dispossess Rao Manohar Singh and to restore the land to the muafidar. Rao Manohar Singh put up his objection to the S. D. O. , Udaipur, on 17. 1. 55 seeking an opportunity of being heard through his counsel The S. D. O. after hearing the parties forwarded the papers to the Collector who again ordered that Rao Manohar Singh be dispossessed and the land be restored to the muafidar. Rao Manohar Singh went up in appeal against this order of the Collector, dated 25. 5. 55, before the Additional Commissioner who upheld the decision of the Collector. Hence this second appeal before the Board by Rao Manohar Singh. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were hard at Udaipur on 13th and 14th February, 1956, The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two arguments mainly before us. The first is that the revenue courts have no power to require the appellant to vacate his possession through an executive order and that they should bring a regular suit against him in accordance with the provisions of law. It was also argued that sec. 30 of the Kanun Mal Mewar has been wrongly applied in the present case as the High Court has held in Mote vs. Board of Revenue decided on 18. 7. 55 that the only course in such cases is to bring a regular suit for dispossession. As regards this contention we may point out that the decision of the High Court cited on behalf of the appellant has no applicability to the present case. In the case before the High Court Moti was the kharamdar of certain muafi land in village Sakharavas the muafidar of the land being the temple of Shri Charbhujaji. Five persons who had nothing to do with this find made a report to the Tehsildar that the applicant was constructing a house on a part of this Kharam land which was illegal and he should, therefore, be stopped from making the construction and should he dispossessed. After various enquiries and reports by subordinate revenue officers the Collector passed an order that the house be demolished. The main contention before the High Court was that there was no provision in any law which authorised the various authorities to pass the orders which they did. This contention was found substantial and their Lordships of the High Court were pleased to examine the various provisions contained in the Kanun Mal Mewar. While discussing sec 30 of the Kanun Mal Mewar it was pointed out that it was enough for purposes of the case that Moti was not a trespasser and even if he was a trespasser the five persons who actually applied for his discussion had no right to make such an application. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the portion appearing after these observations and which runs as follows:- ". . . But it stands to reason that even the Mewar Govt. did not intended that these various'"powcrs winch were conferred on the various revenue officers or courts should be exercised by them either suo moto on the application of busy bodies like these five persons. . . . " It has been argued that these observations clearly mean that no action under this section can be taken unless a regular suit is filed by the officer concerned. This is clearly a wrong interpretation and stands completely negatived by the sentence appearing immediately after this quotation and which is as follows : - ". . . The intention must have been that persons authorised, for example to eject a person, or authorised to resume a tenancy should apply. . . " Thus it is evident that their Lordships made it clear that revenue officers can take action under this section if an application is presented before them by authorised persons. However as the present case has no semblance with this case, it is needless to pursue the point any further. In our opinion it become perfectly clear that possession was handed over to Rao Manohar Singh during the muafi enquiry proceedings that were carried out by revenue officers in compliance with the direction of the Mahakma Khas of the former Mewar State. It was made very clear at the time of handing over possession to Rao Manohar Singh that in case the muafidar was given Kharam of the land possession would be restored to the muafidar. Rao Manohar Singh himself gave a written undertaking to this effect. While holding this enquiry the revenue officer was acting as a revenue court. Every court has inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court (Sec. 151, C. P. C.) It would be preposterous to argue that the court was well within its authority to hand over possession during the course of the enquiry and that it had no authority to resume that possession. Such a proposition would frustrate the very purpose of enquiry and would lead to endless litigation and inconveniences. In our opinion the order of the Collector clearly comes within the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. It is an established principle of law that an act of the court shall prejudice no person. The muafidar was deprived of his possession by an action of the court and when the decision is ultimately in favour of the muafidar he should injustice and fair play get back his possession through the court. The other contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that he is a tenant of the land in dispute and as such cannot be ejected. This contention too is devoid of all substance As pointed out above the land was handed over to the appellant on the express condition that he will cultivate it only as long as Kharam was not restored to the muafidar. When ultimately the muafi enquiry has been dropped and the decision of the Govt. is to restore possession to the muafidar it is not open now to the appellant to say that he should not be dispossessed from the land. His possession was only for a limited purpose and time which has come to an end by the decision of the Govt. to restore muafi land to the muafidar. We, therefore hold that the decision of the learned Additional Commissioner is perfectly valid and calls for no interference. The appeal is hereby rejected. .;