- (1.) THIS is a revision against the appellate decision of the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 3. 2. 56 in a case under the Marwar Patta Act.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well Put briefly the facts of the case are that Jogaram applied on 13. 11. 51 before the Patta Officer Municipality Jodhpur for renewal of the Patta standing in the name of the deceased Kishnaram on the ground of inheritance. During the course of the proceedings one Mst. Gori appeared and claimed renewal of the Patta in her own name on the basis of being the legal heir of the deceased Bhojram in preference to Jogaram A civil litigation ensued between the two and the Chief Judge of the Chief Court of the former Jodhpur State by his decision dated 19. 10. 46 rejected Mt. Gori's claim. When Mst Gori went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur against the decision of the Patta Committee dated 30. 1. 54 her appeal was dismissed but the learned Additional Commissioner directed the Patta Committee to make further inquiry before issuing Patta as to whether the respondent is entitled to receive Patta in his own name or as Mahant of Ramdwara At this stage objections were put up before the Patta Officer on behalf of the Meghwal community of Jodhpur claiming renewal of the Patta in the name of the community on the ground that Ramdwara belonged to that community. The Patta Officer after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the objection of the Meghwal community besides being beyond limitation was untenable on merits as well as it raised intricate questions of title and rights which a Patta court was not authorised to investigate. The Patta Committee agreed with the opinion of the Patta Officer and rejected the objection of the Meghwals on 19. 10. 55 and directed renewal of the Patta in the name of Jogaram. This order was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner as can be gathered from bis judgment was conscious of the fact that the appeal was presented by an incompetent person and if it was entertained "would encourage protracted and unnecessary litigation and may prove a source of harassment to the public. " But the learned Additional Commissioner was influenced by the consideration that "the case was rightly or wrongly remanded to the lower court to make inquiry whether the respondent was entitled to receive Patta in his name or as a Mahant In order to make this inquiry the evidence of those persons who claim that the Ramdwara belongs to general public or to a particular community could not be refused. ' The learned Additional Commissioner therefore allowed the appeal and remanded the case with the direction that the objection of the appellant be heard and disposed of according to merits. Hence this revision by Jogaram. All disputes regarding the grant of a Patta or its renewal are to be decided on the basis of occupation or possession. As provided in sec. 16 of the Act, it must be clearly understood that it is not the duty of the Patta Officer to decide complicated questions of title under the guise of a Patta proceeding Where the right of an applicant to a Patta or its renewal is challenged the Patta Officer is bound to inquire whether the applicant is infact in bonafied occupation of the land or has infact obtained possession on the basis of the alleged transfer. If after such inquiry the applicant is found in bonafide possession the Patta Officer is to renew the Patta in his name. It has further been made clear that nothing in the Act shall be deemed to debar a person from establishing his title to the land in dispute by suit in civil courts and if he is successful inland obtained possession through a civil court he can seek renewal of the Patta in spite of the fact that the same has been renewed earlier in the name of some other person. Thus it is evident that the Patta Officer is authorised to renew Pattas on the basis of bonafied possession or occupation and is precluded from going into intricate questions of law or title which lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The decision of the learned Additional Commissioner which forms the subject matter of this revision does not adhere to this principle. The Meghwal community claimed Patta, or, to be more accurate renewal of the:old Patta on the ground that the Ramdwara belonged to the community and the Mahant though in possession was holding the property in the capacity of a Mahant or Pujari with right to carry on the worship and nothing further than that. In other words, the Meghwal community admitted the bonafied possession or occupation of Jogaram but pleaded that as the proprietary rights vested in the entire Meghwal community Patta should be granted in its name. To entertain such an objection would evidently amount to violating the mandatory provisions of sec. 16 of the Marwar Patta Act and would be an encroachment upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court i. e. it would amount to an assumption of jurisdiction not vested in a Patta Officer by law. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner is therefore clearly untenable. The decision of the Patta Committee dated 19. 10. 53 is perfectly correct as it directs the renewal of the old Patta on the basis of actual possession. We, therefore, allow this revisions set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 3. 2. 56 and restore that of the Patta Committee dated 19. 10. 55. .;