- (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Commissioner, Ajmer, under sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and arises out of the following circumstances: - Consequent upon the migration of some Meo families of village Patna Tehsil Kishangarh Dist Alwar agricultural land measuring about 200 bighas became evacuee property. The Tehsildar Kishangarh, acting in the capacity of an Assistant Custodian, granted on 8. 7. 954 a lease to Mangla and 14 other persons of Pepsu, of this agricultural land for a period of 5 years. In June, 1956 the Collector, Alwar on coming to know of this matter instituted an enquiry as a result of which he came to the conclusion that "the leases referred to above should have been issued only to local land-less residents of the village and in case there were no locals forthcoming then the residents of the nearby villages only should have been issued leases of the land in question. Secondly the Patta since the lands were cultivable should have been issued from year to year". He therefore, referred the matter to the Government of Rajasthan with the recommendation that the Custodian may be moved to cancel these Pattas under sec. 12 (1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Relief and Rehabilitation Department issued letter No. D9361/f. 3 1 (39) R&r/56, dated 22. 6. 1956 to the Custodian Evacuee Property Rajasthan : - "i am directed to enclose a copy of letter No. Reb-42/1088 dated 31. 6. 1956 received from the Collector (Reh), Alwar. The leases have been issued in contravention of the decisions taken vide para 10 of the minutes of the meeting held at Government House, Alwar, on 22. 6. 1952 (copy enclosed ). The Pattas issued to the Pepsu families should, therefore be cancelled and action taken against the Tehsildar who violated the decisions of the Government in this regard. Since all the evacuee agricultural land has been taken over by the Government of India and is under control I am to request you kindly to take immediate action in the matter, and lease out the land to those who are covered by the decisions of the meeting mentioned above, under intimation to this department. " A copy of this letter was forwarded to the Collector Relief and Rehabilitation, Alwar, who in turn forwarded 3 copy to the Tehsildar Kishangarh for information and necessary action. In compliance with this letter the Tehsildar Kishangarh issued a notice on 13. 7. 1956 cancelling the Patta in question, and requiring the lessees to abstain from cultivating the land. It appears that the leases made some representation to the Collector, Alwar in this connection but on reconsideration allowed them to cultivate the land for kharif of that year on distinct under-standing that after the collection of that harvest they would not be allowed to remain in possession of the land which would thereafter be allotted to landless Harijans. Thereupon the Tehsildar Kishangarh issued of fresh Patta to these allottees valid for a period of 6 months only on 16. 8. 56. Mangla one of the allottees put a revision before the learned Commissioner, Ajmer who after hearing the parties has made this reference without expressing any definite views of his own on the point.
(2.) WE have heard Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma appearing for Mangla and Shri Sirumal appearing for Gurli Ram Harijan who has alleged himself to be interested in the allotment of land and the Government advocate as well. The land in question is admittedly evacuee property and hence comes within the scope of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Sec. 8 of the Act lays down that evacuee property in respect of which a declaration has been issued shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian of State and sec. 10 authorises the Custodian to take such measures as be considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of administering and managing evacuee property. Sec. 12 confers upon him the power to vary or cancel leases or allotments of evacuee property. Sec. 46 bars the Jurisdiction of all civil and revenue courts in respect of any matter which the Custodian is empowered by or under the Act to determine. The leases to Mangla and others were granted by the Tehsildar in 1954 in the capacity of Assistant Custodian. The Government of Rajasthan on being moved in the matter by the Collector Alwar regarded these as being in contravention of the existing Rules and directed the Custodian to cance1 them, There is nothing on the record to show the action that was taken in the matter by the Custodian of the State. From the argument put up before the Commissioner it appears that the Tehsildar while cancelling the lease and granting fresh for 6 months acted in the capacity of the manager of the evacuee property. In the reply given by the Tehsildar Kishangarh to the notice served upon the Government under sec. 80 C. P. C. by Mangla's advocate it has been stated that "the entire evacuee property has been acquired by the Central Government but the powers of managing these lands are enjoyed by the Tehsildars and the Collector even upto this day. " The Government Advocate contacted the Re-settlement Commissioner, Jaipur, and stated before us that Collector and the Tehsildar are managing the Pool Property and that the Re-settlement Department has set up no! managing agency of their own. Sec. 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1955, creates a Compensation Pool consisting of all evacuee properties and other items mentioned in this section. Sec. 16 authorises the Central Government to take measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the Compensation Pool in order that is may be properly utilised in accordance with the provision of the Act. Sec. 15 which is relevant for purposes of this reference lays as below : - "exemption of property in Compensation Pool from process of courts: - No property which from part of the Compensation Pool and which is vested in the Central Government under the provisions of this Act shall be liable to be proceeded against for any claim in any manner what-so-ever in execution of any decree order or by any other process of any court or other authority. " Thus the clear position is that the land in dispute being evacuee property stands included in the Compensation Pool, management of which vests in the Central Government which has been authorised to appoint such officers as it may deem fit. Officers have been so appointed • by the Central Government for the management of the Pool property in the State of Rajasthan. The action taken in the case by the Tehsildar is evidently in the capacity of the management officer of the Pool Property and no Revenue Courts or officer has any jurisdiction to interefere with it or sit in appeal over its judgment For these reasons we are of the opinion that the matter being beyond the jurisdiction of revenue courts or officers the learned Commissioner was not justified in examining it or referring the same to the Board. It may also be pointed out that sec. 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 authorises the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any case or proceedings decided or held by any revenue court or officer subordinate to him. Where no such subordination exists the action of the learned Commissioner would evidently be not covered by the provisions of this section. It is also significant to note that schedule I of the Land Revenue Ac* gives the items that are to be considered as judicial matters and the allotment of land is not included in this schedule. The State Government can in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by sec. 83 of the Land Revenue Act may call for record of any non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. Thus even if it be assumed for a moment that the action was taken by the Tehsildar Kishangarh in the capacity of a Revenue Officer and not as a Management Officer of the Pool property - a proposition which would be without any basis for reasons stated above - it would be clear that revisional jurisdiction would vest in the State Government and not in the Board which derives such jurisdiction from sec. 84 of the Land Revenue Act only. To conclude, therefore, we hold that the reference made by the learned Commissioner is incompetent and is hereby rejected. . ;