- (1.) THIS is a revision against an appellate order of the Additional Collector, Sikar dated 26-12 56, in a case under sec. 160, Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
(2.) WE have heard the applicant's counsel. The Opposite party was not represented by any counsel before us. WE have perused the record as well. The proceedings commenced with an application presented by Chetan Dass before the Collector Siker on dated 19. 12. 55 to the effect that arrears of rent for Svt. year 2011 and 2012 were outstanding against the tenants of Bidodi Badi Tahsil Lachmangarh. A list of such tenants was also attached to this application and it was prayed that on payment of usual fee the arrears may be realised through the Tahsil. This application was forwarded to the Tehsildar Lachmangarh on 19. 12. 55, by the Collector Sikar with the direc-tion that *** The Tehsildar summoned the tenants who appeared before him on 11. 1. 56, and put up an objection stating that Narsingh Dass and Chetan Dass had no right to collect rents from them, that they were holding lands from Chagan Dass landholder, that no rents were in arrears as they bad been paying them as and when due and that Chetan Dass or Narsingh Dass bad no legal remedy against them. After noting these facts the Tehsildar returned the papers to the Collector on 22 2 55 pointing out that there was no law under which action could be taken to realise rent in a summary manner suggested by the Collector. It appears that the tenants put up an application before the Collector, Sikar as well on 18. 1. 56 wherein objections were taken to the legality of the proceedings. The manner in which this application was dealt with by the Collector provides interesting facts. The office was required to put up a report. The report of the clerk is dated 21. 1. 56 and the order of the Collector is also written in the hand of this very clerk. The clerk pointed out that sec. 169 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had application to the case and the Tehsildar could take action in the matter and that the application should be forwarded to him. The order of the Collector reads thus "forwarded in original to Tehsildar Lachmangarh for compliance according to the note submitted above. " When the case came up before the Collector on a reference being made to him by the Tehsildar stated earlier, the learned Collector passed an order on 9. 3. 56 accepting the suggestion of Narsingh Dass that the application be treated as one being under sec. 160, Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the case be returned to the Tehsildar for proceeding with the realisation of arrears. It appears that by the end of March, 1956 Rs. 803/14/-were realised from the tenants After deducting the district board cess Rs. 699/13/9 were paid to Narsingh Dass. When the file reached the office of the Naib Tehsildar he required a list of tenants from Shri Narsingh Dass. An appeal was filed against this order before the Additional Collector Sikar which was rejected by him on 26. 12. 56 on the ground that the Collector Sikar had already examined the case on 9-3 56 and that there was nothing fresh that could warrant a reconsideration or interference. Hence this revision. We feel constrained to observe that the learned Collector ignored all the provisions of law while handling this case. The application was presented before him on 19. 12. 55. We refuse to believe that the learned Collector was so obvious as not to remember that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 bad been enforced on J5- 0-1955 and thereby the Jaipur Tenancy Act stood repealed as regards matters which were dealt in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Shri Narsingh Dass or for the matter of that Shri Chetan Dass were wise enough to refrain deliberately from quoting the law uader which they sought the assistance of the Collector. The Collector also did not consider it necessary to examine this aspect and satisfied himself merely with passing the Hindi order which has been reproduced above. The Tehsildar appears to have applied bis mind to the facts of the case and as a result thereof came to the conclusion that the existing legal provisions were not applicable to the present case. He made a specific reference to the Collector on the point. The learned Collector thereupon appears to have questioned Shri Narsingh Dass who suggested that sec. 160 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was applicable to the present case. The order of the learned Collector dated 9. 3. 56, leaves no room to doubt that the suggestion put forth before him was treated as gospel truth by the Collector who took no pains whatsoever to consult the statute on the point. Sec. 160 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act makes it clear that in the event of any general refusal to pay rent the State Government may after making necessary inquiry declare by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette that such rents may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is only after such a notification has been made that the Collector can take step in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Act. It has not been argued before us by Chetan Dass that a notification as laid down in the section was ever issued by the State Government nor is there any material on record which could raise an inference that such a notification was ever issued There is nothing to show that the Collector ever took any steps to satisfy himself that such a notification was in fact issued by the Government or not. For these reasons we feel that it can safely be presumed that no such notification was ever issued in the case. The learned Collector evidently without consulting the provisions of the section accepted the submission made before him by Narsingh Dass and returned the papers to the Tehsildar in the hope that steps to be taken to help Shri Narsingh Dass, a hope which was fully realised inasmuch as the arrears could be collected and paid to Narsingh Dass within a period of a few weeks only. It is not possible to criticise too severely the perfunctory manner in which the learned Collector dealt with the case. At one stage it appears that the office was considered competent enough to advise the Collector on legal intricacies and the opinion put up by the clerk was accepted in a manner which reflects no credit upon the intelligence of the presiding officer. Deliberate ignorance or flouting of the mandatory provisions of sec. 160 Rajasthan Tenancy Act cannot be treated lightly. It obviously betrays an ignorance of the main principles of law. It is true that sec. 26 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act authorised the Collector to take action in a case of general refusal. But with the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the position underwent a complete change and the Collectors were divested of this authority which was vested exclusively in the State Government. An officer of the status and position of a Collector should have been cognisant of this express provision of law. Looking to the nature of the dispute, it becomes clear that Shri Narsingh Dass and Chagan Dass lay claim to the right to collect rent from the tenants of Bidodi Badi. The one relics upon a Matmi decision of the former Sikar State and the other on some registered deed and other documents alleged to have been executed by the deceased Mahant Gopal Dass It should be distinctly understood by the parties concerned that any adjudication upon this dispute is entirely beyond the scope of this case and they ought to have this controversy decided in a manner permitted under the law. For the purposes of the present case suffice it to observe that the order passed by the learned Collector |on 9. 3. 56 and the action taken by the Tehsil authorities subsequently for collecting rents from the tenants and paying the same to Shri Narsingh Dass was clearly ultra aires. We, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the Collector dated 9. 3. 56 and quash the proceedings taken out by the Tehsil authorities for collection of rents from the applicants. The tenants shall get back the amounts realised from them, irrespective of the fact whether the same has been deposited in Amanat or elsewhere in the treasury or taken away by Shri Narsingh Dass. .;