- (1.) The counsel for the parties and the counsel for the State were heard. Preliminary objections were raised as below: (1) that the joint reference made by the Collector was bad in law; (2) that the Additional Collector had no power to make the reference; (3) that a reference made after 7 years, especially when there was a prevision for appeal should not be entertained, and (4) that the Collector should have given a hearing to the parties before -making this reference.
(2.) So far as the (objection raised against making a joint reference is concerned, it was conceded that such a reference was bad in law. A joint reference does not indicate prima facie that the learned Addl. Collector had given thought to each case individually which he was duty bound to do. It is a well known maxim that it is more important to show that justice is being done than to do it. A joint reference does not indicate that judicial consideration was given to each and every case. It is, therefore, bad in law and should be avoided.
(3.) With regard to the contention that the learned Additional Collector had no power to make the reference, attention may be invited to the definition of Collector given in sec. 5(7) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, according to which a Collector "shall mean a Collector or an Additional Collector appointed under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949, or under any other law for the time being in force." This clearly indicates that this objection was evidently untenable. An additional Collector is as much competent to make a reference under sec. 82 of the Land Revenue Act or 232 of the Tenancy Act as the Collector.;