- (1.) THE facts of the case which have given rise to this application in revision against an order of the learned Commissioner, Bikaner dated 26-10-56 may in brief be stated as below: -
(2.) IT appears that the opposite-party filed an application before the Collector, Churu praying that the fields in dispute adjoining the abadi may be acquired and allotted to them for the extension of the abadi as well as for the grazing of the cattle. The Tehsildar to whom the said application was forwarded, reported on 1. 3. 54 that the land was recorded in the Khudkasht of the Jagirdar and it could not be included in the abadi for allotment to the opposite party at their request. This recommendation does not appear to have been accepted by the Collector who remanded it to the Tehsildar for further enquiry in the matter. The Tehsildar however proposed that the aforesaid land be acquired and allotted to the opposite party. This proposal was confirmed by the learned Collector on 1-8-56. The applicants went in appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner who also confirmed the same by his decision dated 26-10-56. IT is against this order of the learned Commissioner that the present application in revision has been filed before us. The learned counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this revision on the ground that the matter in dispute was of a non-judicial nature and under sec. 83 of the Land Revenue Act the State Government alone can entertain this revision. The learned counsel for the applicants however met this objection by arguing that the orders of the Commissioner in substance meant the ejectment of the applicants from their land which was recorded since long in their Khudkasht and that the provisions of the Land Revenue Act were not at all applicable to the facts of the case. It was urged that as a second appeal was not competent against an appellate order of the learned Commissioner this revision was maintainable under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. We have examined the proceedings and find that evidently these did not commence under sec. 92 or 95 of the Land Revenue Act. Therefore the question whether the proceedings were of a judicial or non-judicial nature within the meaning of sec. 23 (2) of this Act does not arise. A perusal of the record shows that these proceedings are essentially for the ejectment and dispossession of the applicants from their Khudkasht jagir land. According to Sec. 161 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act no tenant can be ejected from his holding except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The sections that subsequently follow mention the conditions under which ejectment of a tenant can be made and the manner of doing it. None of these conditions existed in the present case nor has it been contended that such conditions existed. The Bikaner Tenancy Act also does not contain any provisions for dispossessing a jagirdar from his Khudkasht land in any such manner. Thus in our opinion the order of the learned Commissioner purporting to deprive the applicants of their Khudkasht land in this manner is illegal and not supported by law. RLW 1957, page 548 may be cited as an authority to support this view. The entire proceedings therefore, in our opinion stand vitiated and the orders given by all the lower courts are set aside. In the result the revision application is allowed and the application of the opposite party stands rejected. .;