- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated 4. 5. 65 rejecting the appeal of the appellant against the order of the Collector, Jhunjhnu, dated 9. 9. 64, whereby the Collector, Jhunjhunu, had allotted 1-1/2 bigha of land in khasra No. 145 situated in village Jei Pahadi to respondent No. 2.
(2.) IT has been averred in the grounds of appeal that the land in question had been in the possession of the appellant for a long time, but the same had been wrongly included in Khasra No. 145 by the Settlement Officer of the Thikana. IT was contended that the land was allotted to the respondent No. 2 without an enquiry being made from the Tehsil or a notice to the appellant. IT was, further, stated that the appellant had submitted an application for the regularisation of his possession over this land in view of the Gazette Notification dated the 8th June, and that the Naib Tehsildar had recommended the case of the appellant to the Tehsildar for the regularisation of his possession. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the State that this matter related to the allotment of land and was, therefore, a non-judicial matter. As such, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. This contention must prevail in view of Sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act which defines the controlling powers of the Board of Revenue and lays down that the control of all non-judicial matters connected with the revenue in the State, other than matters connected with Settlement, is vested in the State Government, and the control of all judicial matters, and of all matters connected with settlement is vested in the Board. Sub-section (2) of sec. 23 defines the expression 'judicial matter' as a proceeding in which a revenue court or officer has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto. It further lays down that the proceedings and orders as well as the appeals, revisions and references in the cases specified in the First Schedule shall be deemed to be judicial matters. The aforesaid Schedule enumerates 15 items, but the subject of allotment of land finds no place therein. In this connection, reference may also be made to Govinda vs. Kalyan (1966 RRD 17) and Hariya vs. State of Rajasthan (1962 RRD 154 ). In these two cases, the same question came up for consideration and it was held by the learned Members that the allotment of land was not a judicial matter in view of Sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the, matter, therefore, did not lie within the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant namely, Vijailal vs. Bachhu (1961 RRD 265), wherein a D. B. of this Board entertained a revision petition in a matter relating to allotment of land has no relevance to the present case. A perusal of the aforesaid authority shows that the Board decided to interfere in that case on the ground that the applicant therein had claimed cultivatory possession lasting over several years and it was found that this contention had not been resolved by the subordinate officers. In the present case, it is admitted that the land which has been allotted stands recorded as Bila Mam Parat, and falls in Khasra No. 145, to which the appellant makes no claim. It has been admitted at the bar that the land of the appellant lies in Khasra No. 144 and not in Khasra No. 145. The allotment is in respect of Khasra No. 145, as seen from the impugned orders. The report of the Girdawar dated 13. 7. 65, is also very unambiguous and states that only unoccupied land out of Khasra No. 145 was allotted to the respondent. In the grounds of appeal, it may be observed the learned counsel for the appellant has taken mutually contradictory stands. On the one hand, it is pleaded that the appellant has been in possession of the land since times immemorial, and that the Settlement Officer had committed an error in including this land in Khasra No. 145 and recording it as Parat Sarkar. On the other hand, it is averred that the appellant has applied to the Government for the regularisation of his possession over this land, meaning thereby that he is in unauthorised occupation of the same. The two stands are inconsistent and mutually destructive. If the land is in his unauthorised occupation, surely the authorities will have to move under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to have him evicted as stated by the Collector as well as the learned Revenue Appellate Authority in their impugned orders. He will, then, have ample opportunity to resist the eviction notice and to put forward his case. On the other hand, if the land is in his legitimate possession and covers the boundaries of Khasra No. 144, it is for him to apply for the remeasurement of Khasra No. 144 from fixed points and to have his field delineated afresh. In either case, this appeal is infructuous. In the result, therefore, we hereby reject this second appeal. . ;