- (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of Settlement Officer Jaipur dated 17. 1. 1959.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record as well. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the opposite party put an application on 5. 5. 1953 before the Settlement Officer, Jaipur that Khasra numbers 51, 52 and 107 were under their cultivatory possession and so parcha Settlement should be issued in their names as equal co-sharers. But from the office report it was found that these numbers had been already entered in the settlement record as Sawai-Chak and out of them number 52 was a Pacca well. The learned Assistant Settlement Officer went to the spot and having examined one of the opposite party, Sardar Mal, and three of his witnesses passed an order that as the land under dispute was being cultivated by the opposite party the same be struck off from Maqbuza Thikana and entered in his name. The witnesses deposed before him that the land had been brought under cultivation by the opposite patty that very year i. e. , when the statements were being recorded and it was Banjar before that. The crop sown was, also neither mentioned there nor brought on record by the Assistant Settlement Officer. An appeal was preferred against this order to the Settlement Officer Jaipur by the applicants alleging that the order passed by the learned Assistant Settlement Officer had been passed behind their back without informing them. But the same was rejected only with the observation that the applicants should proceed in a regular court and no correction could be made in the Settlement papers, the settlement work in the Tehsil having been finished long ago. It was also observed by the learned Settlement Officer that the applicants not being a party in the proceedings before the A. S. O. , appeal could not be preferred by them. It is against this order that this revision has been filed. The grounds urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicants are that the land was being used as 'charagah' and the Assistant Settlement Officer had without giving any notice to the villagers wrongly and illegally entered it in the name of the opposite party even though the the same was not in their possession at the time of the record operations. This case relates to a period when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had not come in force. This case pertains to the unit of former Jaipur State where the allotments of unoccupied and Sawai Chak land was governed by Revenue Standing Order No. (2 ). The opposite party were the Tankhadars of the village and as the whole of the village not in his Tankha grant it was to be treated as Khalsa under the terms of sec. (1) sub-sec. (2 ). 'explanation* of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945. 'sawai Chak' land has been defined in para 1, sub-para (ii) of the same standing order as land assessed but not occupied by any tenant". Under para 3 of this order, a Nazim could allot land upto 30 Bighas, or 10 Bighas wet. Under para 6 it has been mentioned that an Assistant Settlement Officer could exercise the powers of a Nazim when the area was under assessment or revision of assessment. Under para 18 thereof the value of the trees standing, wells or building if any, on the land was also to be recovered from the applicant before final orders could be passed. The valuation was required to be made in accordance with the current sale price of the locality. All cases in which the value was found to be more than Rs. 200/- were necessary to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for orders. The powers of the Deputy Commissioner during the period of assessment or revision of assessment were to be exercised by the Settlement Officer. Every order passed by any officer under this standing order was appealable as provided in para 19 thereof. The Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were also empowered under para 22 thereof to revise and set-aside the order or in any way modify the decision of the subordinate officer within a period of three years. The Board of Revenue was further authorised without any limit of time where there had been a material irregularity in the procedure or where the decision exceeded the power of the officer who passed it or where it was passed under a mistake of facts, etc. Under the terms of the para 23 the assignee whose allotment was cancelled was not entitled even to compensation for any improvement that he might have made. In this case it is clear beyond doubt that the land under dispute had a Pacca well thereon. Originally the land had been entered as 'sawai Chak' and that rightly in accordance with the definition of Sawai Chak referred to above. Before passing final orders regarding allotment of such a land under para 18 referred to above the valuation of the well was required to be made and if the same was found to be of a value of more than that of Rs. 200/- the case had to be referred to the Settlement Officer. The learned A. S. O. had no authority to pass final orders in the matter before recovering the price of the well from the opposite party in accordance with the provision of para 18, either after setting himself if it was in his power or seeking the previous sanction of the Settlement Officer if the price of the well was found to exceed Rs. 200/ -. This was to be done not only regarding price of the well but also the price of the trees, if any, found standing thereon. As this has not been done and the land under dispute has been ordered to be entered in the name of opposite party without observing these clear provisions of law and even without letting the village people, the Lumberdar, Patwari or other concerned officer of the village to have any notice in the matter, this order of the learned A. S. O. was clearly irregular and in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him. As defined in para (ii) of the Rev. Standing Order No. 2 land occupied without authority was still to be continued to be entered as 'sawai Chak'. The learned Settlement Officer should have taken notice, observed these irregularities and dealt with them while deciding the appeal, or if due to the close of the Settlement Operations (which is not clear from the record) he had ceased to have jurisdiction, transferred the appeal to the authorities concerned. He could not dismiss the appeal only by an observation that the Settlement work in the Tehsil had been finished. He has, therefore, also committed an irregularity and acted illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction failed to exercises the same. The order under revision cannot therefore be upheld. We, therefore, accept this revision and set-aside the orders of the learned Assistant Settlement Officer, as well as, the Settlement Officer and remand the case to the Collector, Jaipur for redeciding the application of the opposite party in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. .;