- (1.) THIS application in revision wrongly styled as an appeal against an appellate order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 21. 7. 56 arises under the following circumstances.
(2.) ONE Lala sold a portion of his Pattedari land to Ramdeo, the applicant, by means of a registered sale deed dated 9. 3. 49 for a consideration of Rs. 260/ -. Gangaram, the opposite party brought this fact to the notice of the Nazim (S. D. O.), Phulera by filing an application purporting to be under sec. 14 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act in which he stated that the said alienation made by Lala to Ramdeo a non-agriculturist was contrary to the provisions of sec. 11 (2) a (i) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945 and prayed that the said sale deed be cancelled, Thereupon, the S. D. O. , after enquiry, allowed the application and ordered the applicant to return the land to Lala and also directed him to pay back the sale amount to Ramdeo. An appeal was filed against this order of the Assistant Collector by Ramdeo, the applicant, before the Collector who upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. A second appeal was filed before the Learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, who observed that Gangaram initiated these proceedings presumably under sub sec. (1) of sec. 14 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945, according to which the Nazim (S. D. Q.) was authorised only to revise and alter the terms of the alienation so as to bring it into accordance with such form permitted by or under the said Act as the alienee appeared to be equitable entitled to claim. He also further observed that the Nazim was competent to alter the terms of the alienation and convert it into a usufructuary mortgage in the manner laid down in sec. 11 (2) (b) (i) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act for a period not exceeding 20 years with the direction that expiry of the said term the land shall be re-delivered to Lala free of encumbrance. The learned Additional Commissioner also pointed out that the learned Nazim (S. D. O.) could also initiate and pass an order for ejectment of the vendor and vendee under sec. 83 of the Jaipur. Tenancy Act. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and ordered that the decision given by the lower court be set aside and the case be sent back to it with the direction to hear the parties again and give a fresh decision in the light of the observations made by the learned Additional Commissioner. Accordingly the learned S. D. O. heard the parties. He observed that the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945 had since been repealed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 under which there was no restriction on the sale of tenancies to non-agriculturists and therefore, the question of revision or alternation of the terms of alienation did not arise. Accordingly, he dismissed the application of Gangaram. Being aggrieved from this order, Gangaram went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The main ground taken in the memorandum of appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner was that as the proceedings had commenced under the Jaipur Tenancy Act and the same were pending long before the passing of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the provisions of the former on the subject will apply as the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had no retrospective effect to negative a vested right. It was also pointed out that the repeal of the Jaipur Tenancy Act did not affect any pending cases and the trial court erroneously interpreted the provisions of sec. 206 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which is not at all applicable to the facts of the case. The learned Additional Commissioner also observed that as in the classifications of tenants under the Jaipur Tenancy Act a Pattedar tenant had acquired special rights and liabilities, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in which there is no mention of a Pattedar tenant among the classes of tenants, its provisions shall not be applicable to the present case. It was also pointed out that as a Pattedar tenant had a different status from that of a Khatedar tenant and had acquired certain rights which the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by repealing the Jaipur Tenancy Act and had not taken away either by express provisions of law or by implication, the case was triable under sec. 14 (1) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and vacated the order given by the learned S. D O. and remanded the case to him with the direction to dispose it of in accordance with the provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved from this order, the applicant has filed this revision before us. His main contention is that on the date when the appeal was pending before the learned Additional Commissioner, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had come into force and as per its sec. 3 (1) (a) read with schedule A, completely repealed the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945. It was, therefore, urged that as this type of proceeding was not contemplated in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the schedules thereunder, the trial court or even for the matter of that the lower appellate court should have directed the parties to seek redress in some other competent court acted in accordance with the provisions of sec. 206 (4) of the Act which directed that suits, applications, cases or proceedings other than those referred to in sec. 207, pending before a revenue court on the coming into force of this Act, shall be transferred by such revenue court to the civil court having jurisdiction to try, hear and determine the same. I was on the alternative urged that the Jaipur Tenancy Act having been repealed, the proceedings if not completed and closed under the said Act before it was repealed, could not be continued on the coming into force of the repealing Act, viz. the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that the parties should be left in status quo. In support of this, he cited AIR 1954, Saurasthra, p. 77, wherein it was laid down that when an Act is repealed it must be considered except as to transactions past and closed, as if it bad never existed. Similarly, ii an act gives right to do anything, the thing to be done, if not completed before the Act is repealed must upon the repeal of the Act be left in status quo. As against this the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that there being no provision similar to sec. 14 (1) of the said Tenancy Act in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the proceedings once initiated under the former even if it is repealed by the latter shall be heard and decided in accordance with the provisions of the former as envisaged in sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act. It was also urged that the opposite party having once acquired a right to bring it to the notice of the competent authority, namely Nazim that an alienation had been made in contravention of the provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, the said right cannot be taken away by the repeal of the statute under which it was acquired. It was contended that under sec. 6 of the General Glauses Act, a vested right under the old Act which had been repealed by the new Act is saved as the repealing Act being not retrospective in effect cannot take away a right of action which had already vested in a party. In this connection, our attention was drawn to sec. 6 (c) of the General Glauses Act which reads as below : - "whether this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Art, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not. . . . . . . . . affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. " In order to appreciate the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for both the parties, we have to ex mine whether the right which the opposite party claims had, in fact, accrued to him under the Jaipur Tenancy Act or not. Sec. 14 (1) of the Act under which these proceedings started lays down that - "if after the date on which the said Act comes into force any Pattedar tenant alienates his holding in any manner or form not permitted by that Act, the Nazim shall have authority to revise and alter the terms of the alienation so as to bring it into accordance with such form permitted by or under that Act, as the alienee appears to be equitably entitled to claim. " Sec. 11 (2) of the same Act provides that the interest of a Pattedar tenant is transferable provided that in the case of a permanent transfer by voluntary sale made by a Pattedar tenant being an agriculturist, such transfers shall not be made in favour of a non-agriculturist. 3. It is common ground between the parties that the applicant is not an agriculturist within the meaning of sec. 4 (2) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act which means any person whose livelihood is derived wholly or mainly from cultivation of the soil by himself or with the aid of his own family or of hired labour, because the applicant is by profession a Halwai and his livelihood is derived mainly from this profession. According to item 6, Schedule 2 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, an application under sec. 14 (1) of the Act is to be tried by the Nazim and no court fee is leviable if the Nazim acts on his own authority and-/8/- if an application is presented. This obviously means that a proceeding under sec. 14 (1) of the Act can be initiated by the Nazim of his own accord or on an application filed by any person. This brings us to the question whether the feet that a person not party to an alienation who can report against such alienation to a Nazim acquires any vested right within the meaning of sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act. Our answer to it is that he does not acquire any such right. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant the respondent being no party to the alienation, he had no locus standi to impeach the aforesaid proceedings by taking shelter under sec. 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act. It is true that under sec. 14 (1) read with item 6, Schedule II of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. any person can move the court of a Nazim to take cognizance of alienations not permitted by the Act, but surely such a person unless he was himself a vendor or vendee or one who denied title under them cannot be said to have acquired a vested right as contemplated in sec. 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act. A vendor or vendee in such a case may be said to have acquired some sort of legal right and if these proceedings had started on the application of either of them under sec. 14 (1) of the Jaipur. Tenancy Act, the same would have most probably continued to be tried and determined finally under it in spite of the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings it was repealed by the new statute, viz. the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As already stated above, the opposite party being no party to the impugned transaction, he could not be said to have acquired any vested right and if these proceedings which bad started on his application had not been completed and closed before the Jaipur Tenancy Act was repealed, its provisions shall no longer apply and the parties must, upon the repeal of the Act, be left in status quo A. I. R. 1954, Saurasthra p. 77 cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is an authority on this point. The learned Additional Commissioner was clearly wrong and acted illegally in holding that as the opposite party had a vested right accrued to him under the Jaipur Tenancy Act, these proceedings shall be continued to be disposed of under the said Act even though it was repealed during the pendency of the proceedings. The learned S. D. O. , although be did not approach the question from this angle, has, however, in conclusion rightly rejected the application. We agree with him although our reasons are entirely different. Taking this aspect of the matter into consideration, we allow this application, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that the proceedings be dropped and the parties be left in status quo. .;