- (1.) THIS revision petition is preferred on behalf of the State Government and is directed against the judgment of the Asstt. Collector, Deeg dated 10. 4. 1963. Briefly the facts of the case are that certain Khasra numbers were taken over in possession by the Tehsildar Nagar as escheat property for management purposes. In Smt. 2017 the Tehsildar Nagar put the land to auction for cultivation purposes. The plaintiff respondent's bid was the highest. He agreed to pay Rs. 62/-per bigha for the cultivation of that land subject to the terms and conditions of the land on which the land was put to auction for cultivation for one year. It was made clear by the Tehsildar by his order dated 10. 7. 1960 that the land would be given on cultivation to the highest bidder for a term of one year and after that the land will have to be vacated. It was further made clear that no tenancy right would accrue to the intending bidders. THIS agreement was executed by the respondent on 20 7-60. Subsequently the respondent instead of vacating the land and paying the rent pleaded that the Government was not entitled to more than double the rent assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He consequently filed a suit for fixing of rent in the Court of the Asstt. Collector, Deeg who accepted the plaintiff respondent's plea and decreed the suit declaring that the State was only entitled to double the assessed rent instead of this Rs. 62/- per bigha. It is against this decree that this revision application has been preferred directly on behalf of the State by the petitioner.
(2.) THE Government Advocate's only contention was that the Tehsildar got the land cultivated as per agreement and no tenancy right was created in favour of the respondents and the declaratory decree of the Court fixing the rent was without jurisdiction and a nullity. THE agreement can at the most be treated as a license. THE provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act regarding fixing of maximum rent does not apply to the present case. THE counsel for the respondents' reply was that the suit as filed by plaintiff for declaration of assessed rent or this was decreed by the trial Court. Since the decree was appealable no revision lies direct to the Board of Revenue u/s. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. The first point for determination is whether the revision in such cases would lie direct to the Board of Revenue or not. Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act confers powers of revision on the Board of Revenue. It clearly lays down that this power to call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court. The test therefore whether revision lies in this case does not depend upon whether the judgment passed by the trial court was appealable or not. There is no denying of the fact that this decree and judgment of the trial court was appealable before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. Under these circumstances ordinarily no revision would lie because it was the regular suit of the plaintiff respondent in the trial court and the petitioner should have filed the first appeal before the appropriate authority. There is no doubt that a very important question of law was raised before the trial court which relates to the status of the plaintiff respondent i. e. the plaintiff respondent should be treated as a tenant, or merely a licensee or given any other status of accepting cultivation of the escheated land under the management of the Tehsildar. The trial Court without defining the status of the plaintiff respondent decreed his suit for fixing of rent and rejected the demand of the defendant petitioner for claiming the agreed amount on the basis of which the plaintiff respondent took the land for cultivation purposes. This mixed question of law and fact could also be decided by the first appellate Court and it was not such a difficult matter which required the intervention of the Board in a direct manner. The State Government has been wrongly advised to come up in revision before me. For the reasons stated above I am not persuaded to interfere in this revision petition filed by the State Government and it is accordingly rejected. The State Government may now if they so think proper file a regular appeal before the Court concerned and get the status of the plaintiff respondent adjudicated by the appellate Court. .;