- (1.) THIS revision petition by Onkar Bharati is directed against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 12. 5. 1964. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the recorded khatedar tenant of some lands in chack Ratangarh, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. Khasra No. 614 consisting of 1 bigha and 12 biswas which is the disputed chahi land was also shown in the misal bandobast in the khatedari of the petitioner. It is stated that the Commissioner on 10. 10. 1955 ordered the convertion of this agricultural land into abadi. The petitioner consequently applied to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh for a grant of new patta of the abadi land in his favour. THIS application was filed on 26. 11. 58, which was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 2. 9. 1963. Against that order an appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, who accepted the appeal of the petitioner Onkar Bharati and ordered that the land may be given to the petitioner after recovering Re. 1. 50 paisa per sq. yard from the appellant. THIS order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was set aside by the Board of Revenue in their order dated 16. 4. 1963 and the case was remanded to the Collector for determining two issues (1) whether the land was converted into abadi by a competent authority. (ii) whether the land was muafi or khatedari of the applicant. The Collector, Chum by his order dated 11. 12. 1963 found that the land no doubt was ordered to be converted into abadi by the Commissioner by an order of mutation dated 10. 10. 55 but with regard to the second issue, the Collector came to the conclusion that as the land was converted into abadi the petitioner lost his khatedari rights and he could not be granted any patta. THIS order of the Collector in an appeal filed by the petitioner was also confirmed and his application for grant of patta of the abadi land was rejected. Aggrieved by these orders of the subordinate Courts the petitioner has come up in revision before us.
(2.) HIS only contention was that as far as the petitioner's title to the khatedari rights of khasra No. 614 is concerned, it is amply proved from the record that the petitioner was the khatedar of the land. The Commissioner Bikaner vide the Government Notification No. F. 16 (19) Rev. /l-52 dated March, 1963 was empowered to pass orders for convertion of agricultural lands into abadi lands. A true copy of this order has been exhibited as exbt. 1 in the file. Item No. 3 of the above Notification deals with the delegation of Government's financial powers to the Board of Revenue and other revenue authorities with regard to various matters. The counsel for the petitioner therefore argued that without the process of acquisition, a khatedar can never loose his right to his own land. This new ground of resumption of the muafi was wrongly taken by both the parties. In fact, the petitioner was a khatedar of the land only. The Government Advocate only made a feeble attempt to repell this argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner by saying that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was the khatedar of the disputed land. I have considered the arguments advanced and perused the record. From the copy of the patta of the settlement record exbt. 2 placed on record it appears that the petitioner Onkar Bharati was a Gusain by caste is shown as the khatedar of about 10 holdings. Khasra No. 614 the old number of which was 832 shown as Beda Chahi was also shown in the khatedari of the petitioner and in the sub-tenancy of Balu s/o Gyana. This land was not assessed to land revenue. There is a note in column No. 16 that because the holder of the land rendered service to the community by way of drawing water from the well, no rent was assessed on this bera. In column No. 18 relating to remarks it is stated that this land was given to the muafidar by the order of the Revenue Minister. The entire land is shown in the khewat of the Chowdhariyan perhaps for the services rendered by the Chowdh-aries to the Government. Probably it was this muafi of the Chowdharies that had been resumed by the Government as a result of the resumption of all jagirs. But there is nothing on record to show that the khatedari interest of Onkar Bharati was also extinguished. A resumption of a muafi land does not extinguish the right of a khatedar. The convertion of an agricultural land into a abadi land cannot also put an end to the khatedari rights of a tenant. It is not understood why this land was at all converted into abadi and for what purpose. I have not been able to trace the order of the Commissioner Bikaner dated 10. 10. 1955 on the basis of which it is claimed that the land was converted into abadi. There is no doubt that under the Schedule of delegated powers of the Government contained in the Notification referred to above, the Commissioner was no doubt competent to convert agricultural lands into abadi, but on what terms and condition the agricultural land was converted into abadi is nowhere to be seen. The bar of convertion of agricultural land into abadi land came only when sec. 90 A was introduced in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act by amendment on 27. 12. 1958 and not before. This order of the Commissioner is certainly prior to the law now in force. Under the present orders the Government alone can pass orders for convertion of agricultural land into abadi and not the Commissioner. Therefore the rules that could be made applicable for convertion of agricultural land into abadi land must be of Bikaner State Rules. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules cannot be made applicable in the present case. The subordinate Courts therefore did not apply their mind to this matter nor did they took the trouble of putting the old order of the Commissioner-dated 10. 10. 1950 on record to show for what purpose this land was converted into abadi, and at whose instance. There are only conjectures about this matter. The report of the Tehsildar was that the land was resumed as the petitioner did not perform the services required of him and only the disputed land was ordered to be converted into abadi, but this opinion of the Tehsildar is absolutely against the record on file. One thing is however clear from the record and that is that the petitioner is still the khatedar of the disputed land and he cannot be ejected from that land except by a due process of law or by land acquisition proceedings according to the procedure laid down in the Act. Merely because a land was converted into abadi is no ground for disputing the title of the appellant's khatedari land. However the absence of the order of the Commissioner dated 10. 10. 1953 for converting into abadi the question of grant of patta cannot arise. Also it must be shown on what terms and conditions under the old Bikaner Rules such pattas were granted. Attempt has however been made by the petitioner to place on record, a copy of the Revenue Commissioner's order dated 19. 4. 1928 relating to Tehsil Ratangarh in the case Hotilal Vaidya r/o Rajaldesar. In that case the land belonged to one Malchand, that land was sold out and a abadi patta was issued to the auction purchaser on payment of one pie per sq. yard and on the payment of Rs. 10/-for the patta. This order was dated 19. 4. 28. Surely there must be some rules which governed such cases in the past in the old Bikaner area. Therefore, the order passed by the subordinate Courts directing that the right of the petitioner in the khatedari land was extinguished, is on the face of it illegal and against the provision of law and is therefore set aside. The appeal of the petitioner is accepted and the case is remanded back further whether this land was converted into abadi and if so for what purpose and what rules governed the issue of abadi patta and to whom. These are the matters which the Collector must determine with reference to the old Bikaner law and after hearing the parties pass fresh orders. . ;