- (1.) THIS is a revision against an appellate decision of the Additional Commissioner Bikaner, dated 6. 4. 1955 in a case relating to a right of way to one's field through that of another.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant was that the Collector had no jurisdiction to hear first appeal against the decision of the Assistant Collector, and as such the Commissioner was incompetent to hear the second appeal which lay before him. Much need not be said on the point. It has been held by a Full Bench of the Board in Thakur Raj vs. Shiva Narain, case No. 63, Jaipur, Svt. 2009, reported in 1 - Rajasthan Revenue Decision - 1954, "that where there is a total want of jurisdiction no amount of consent can confer jurisdiction upon a court, but where there is a mere irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon a court by law consent or waiver would validate the proceedings. In the present case it is significant to observe that the applicant himself filed the appeal before the lower appellate court and he cannot be allowed to challenged the jurisdiction of that court to hear that appeal after seeing that the verdict has gone against him. Coming to the merits of the case it is clear that the applicant has no valid ground for attacking the propriety of the decision of the lower court. A regular approach to the applicant's square does exist at present. The applicant demands a way through the square of the opposite party on the ground that it would provide him with a shorter passage. It has been amply established by the evidence on record that the applicant has never been allowed by the opposite party to use the way which he has now claimed for himself. In fact the point brought out by the learned Collector in his decision,dated 29 81952, clearly reveal the ulterior motives. The Tehsildar Karanpur had decided the case on 27. 7. 1950 on a report of the Naib-Tehsildar, dated 6. 7. 1950, and this decision was that the applicant had already one route existing and it was not possible to grant him another one through the fields of the opposite party. But for reasons which cannot be gathered from the record, almost a few days after this decision the same Tehsildar restarted the matter again. The learned Collector examined the entire case and so has the learned Divisional Commissioner. We have no hesitation in observing that the applicant has absolutely no case and the only impelling force behind him appears to be the achievement of his point against the opposite party, as may lead to a satisfaction of his vanity. The application is hereby rejected , .;