- (1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an appellate order of the Collector Alwar dated 24. 6. 1955, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The material facts of the case, which may be gathered from the sketchy notes on this file (the original file in which the Tehsildar held proceedings under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the said. Art having disappeared) may briefly be stated as follows. In the absence of the original file it may safely be assumed that the proceedings which were initiated by the Tehsildar Laxmangarh under sec. 4 of the said Act on his own motion terminated in an order on about 30. 12. 1952 fixing cash rents in village Nizam Nagar on the basis of assessed revenue rates in the adjoining settled villages for similar soil classes A copy of this order as is clear from an entry in the Roznanmcha Waqiyati of the Patwari halqa was sent to him so that he might announce the rates so fixed in the village. There is nothing in the entry which would indicate whether a copy of the order was posted at a conspicuous place in the Tehsil headquarters and village Panchayatghar. There is no material on the file which is before us, which would point to the conclusion whether or not the village possesses a Panchayatghar at which a copy of the order could be posted. In the absence of any material to the contrary we can safely act on the assumption that the rates so fixed were announced in the village. THIS assumption is warranted by the circumstance that in the entry in the Roznamcha Waqiyati of the Patwari which is signed by some of the applicants, it is clearly set out that the necessary announce-ment was made in the village on or about 17. 1. 1953. The applicants imagined that their rent rates had been considerably raised by the Tehsildar without giving them a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the enhancement. They felt aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar and lodged an appeal before the Collector on 26. 3. 1953. The appeal was returned to them by the learned Collector under an erroneous conception of law so that they might make good the deficiency in court fee as well as attest certain amendments which had be subsequently made in the appeal and appear to be in the nature of interpolations The appeal was again filed before the learned Collector on 24. 4. 1953 after complying with these terms. It was contended before the learned Collector on behalf of the Jagirdar whose village was under the management of the Court of Wards that the appeal should be dismissed on, and a preliminary, ground that it had been filed beyond the period of 30 days prescribed in sec. 4 of the said Act. The learned Collector after considering the point whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act came to the conclusion that the said provision of law did not apply to the appeal, which had been clearly filed beyond the period of limitation. He, therefore, rejected it, hence the revision before the Board by the applicants.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the applicants at considerable length as the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the Court of Wards WE have also examined such material as was available to us and as could be garnered from a few loose papers which after having been arranged haphazardly were put before us in order to take place of the original file that had apparently gone astray. A preliminary objection was raised before us by the learned counsel for the Court of Wards that the application in revision not competent as there was no statutory provision in that behalf. The inherent powers of the court could not be invoked in interfering in revision with the appellate order of the learned Collector which, as provided in sec. 4 of the said Act, was final and could not be called in question. On behalf of the applicants it was urged that the Board being the hiehest court of appeal, reference and revision could, its. exercise of its power of superintendence, examine these proceedings in order to determine the validity of the orders made by the learned Collector and the learned Tehsildar. The controversy hinges on the words "the order of the Collector shall be final" which occurred in sec. 4 of the said Act. These words have been judicially construed in a large number of authorities to which a" reference will be made presently. Revisional powers of the Board are similar to the powers exercised by the High Court under sec. 115, C. P. C. Though there is a conflict injudicial opinion of the point the majority of the High Courts in India have learned to the view that where under a special enactment a certain order has been made final the High Court has no power to revise it and thereby detract from its finality. (See 30 A I. R. 1943 Oudh 304 ; 27 A. I. R. 1940 Oudh 335 (337) ; 25 A. I. R. 1931 Cal. 465 ). The learned counsel for the non-applicant drew our attention to R/r. D. 1956 p. 16/. In that case, which came up before a learned Member of the Board, a similar question was involved, After examining the law bearing on the subject in great detail the Learned Member held on the basis of a decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Moti Singh vs. Board of Revenue and others of 5th May, 1952 (D. Civil Misc. Writ No. 74 of 1951 under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) that the Board could not entertain a revision in matters of this type under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance. So far as the present case is concerned the matter stands concluded by these authorities which have dissented from the view expressed by Allahabad High Court in 25 A. I. R. 1938 All. 47 that the word 'final' in sec. 44 (5) of the 13. P. Encumbered Estates Act, means, finality for the purpose of appeal and the High Court can interfere in revision under sec. 115, C. P. C. Approaching the matter from another angle we are clearly of opinion that as the matter dealt with by the learned Tehsildar under sec. 4 of the said Act is not covered by any Article of the Schedules to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, the Board is not competent to entertain a revision in such circumstances. This is in consonance with the view taken by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in the decisions referred to above. Assuming for the sake of argument that the order of the learned Collector could be impugned by the Board in exercise of its revisional powers we would restrain from interfering with it for the reasons that in reaching a decision on the point whether or not the appeal was barred by limitation the learned Collector exercised his discretion correctly and did not commit any illegality and material irregularity in doing so as would be apparent from the data set out below. In the entry against serial No. 116 of the Roznamcha Waqiyati of the Patwari the fact is clearly mentioned that the order of the learned Tehsildar which was received by the Patwari, vide entry No. 85 of the said Roznamcha was announced in the village on or about 17-14953. When the applicants were subsequently called by the Naib Tehsildar who required them to deposit rent at the rates fixed by the learned Tehsildar, they expressed their inability to do so. . There is. an implied admission on their part from which it can be safely inferred that they were aware of the order of the learned Thesildar towards the end of January, 1953. It was, therefore, incumbent on them to file an appeal before the learned Collector within a period of 30 days, i. e. by the end of February or March, 1953 at the latest. For the first time they went in appeal to the learned Collector on 26. 3. 1953. They submitted an application to the learned Collector invoking the aid of sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of the delay which had occurred in filing the appeal. Before they could rely on the said provision of the Indian Limitation Act, it was necessary for them to show that it had been extended to the special enactment under which the Tehsildar had acted into fixing sash rents. Section 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act is in the following terms : - ''where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of sec. 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefore in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining, any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law - (a), the provisions contained in sec. 4, secs. 9 to 18, and sec. 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law ; and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply. " It is abundantly clear that the provisions of sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act would not apply to any special or local law unless they had been specifically made applicable by a clear provision to that effect. We do not find any such provision in the said Act. The delay in filing the appeal could not therefore, be condoned by the learned Collector. Even on this ground the learned Collector was justified in refusing to entertain an appeal which had been filed much beyond the prescribed period of limitation, viz. 30 days. In this view of the matter it is hardly necessary to comment on the merits of the case nor is it relevant in the context of the facts set out above to go into the points whether in working out cash rent the learned Tehsildar was justified in initiating proceedings on his own motion and whether in fixing them he had heard the parties or not. For the aforesaid reasons we are clearly of opinion that the revision is incompetent and, therefore, stands, rejected. In the result the orders of the learned Collector which cannot be called in question would stand. . ;