- (1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this revision may briefly be summarised thus. In village Arnaya, tehsil Sanchore a dispute existed between the then Jagirdar and the cultivators regarding the realisation of rent in Svt. 2010. THE Jagirdar presented an application before the Revenue Minister Rajasthan and the same was forwarded to the Collector Jalore on 16 2 53 with the direction that the Revenue Authorities should help the Jagirdar in realising the rent in Kunta for Svt. 2008 and 2009 and for Svt. 2010 according to custom. THE Collector forwarded the papers to the S. D. O. Bhinmal for compliance who on 16. 2. 54 ordered that the cultivators should do 'lata' according to the prevailing custom. While these proceedings were pending another letter No. F. 4 (147 Rev/1954 dated March 1954 was received from the Revenue Minister desiring that Kunta should be made for Svt 2010. THE S. D. O. forwarded these papers to the Tehsildar Sanchore who deputed one Abheyraj for Kuntas. Abhey Raj presented his report before the Tehsildar. It may also be stated here that one Moolraj was deputed by the S. D. O. Bhinmal for making kuntas and his report also was presented before the Tehsildar. THE Jagirdar also produced a Kuntanama. After recording the evidence of the parties the Tehsildar by his dated order 5. 12. 55 rejected the Kuntanama of Abheyraj and the Jagirdar. He, however, relied on the report of Moolraj and granted a decree in favour of the Jagirdar against the cultivators to the extent shown in the Kuntanama prepared by Moolraj. Both the parties went up in appeal before the Collector, Jalore who rejected the same. THEreafter second appeal and a cross appeal were filed before the Additional Commissioner who also rejected the same and confirmed the decree of the Tehsildar. Hence this revision.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The proceedings that give rise to this revision evidently started under sec. 4 A of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating (Second Amendment) Act of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act ). It is provided therein that when the rent is payable by a division of the produce or is based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop then if either the land holder or the tenant neglects to attend at the proper time or if there is a dispute about the division, quantity or value of the produce, the Tehsildar may on the application of either party proceed to make or depute an officer to make the division, estimate or appraisement. After sec. 4-A follows sec. 4-B which provides the procedure. The Tehsildar has to issue a written notice to the opposite party to attend on a date, time or place specified on the notice. Thereafter if the Tehsildar decides himself to make the division, estimate or appraisement he has to go to the place specified in the notice on the date so fixed, hear the parties, record their objections and inspect the produce or the crop. The Tehsildar has then to decide all objections and divide the produce in such a manner as he thinks best and equitable. Where the rent is based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop, the Tehsildar has to make an estimate of the value of the crop; determine the amount to be paid and pass an order for the payment of such amount and costs, if any, and such an order has the effect of a decree of arrears of rent. Where, however, the Tehsildar deputes another officer to make a division or an appraisement a slightly different procedure is provided. This officer has to appoint assessors to assist him in the division of produce or in the appraisement of the crop. He has to record the opinion of the officers before making what is called his award. If it is a case of a division of the produce and the parties agree to the manner of the division proposed by the the officer the division shall be made accordingly. But if the parties do not agree to such manner of division and in all cases in which the rent is based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop the officer shall make an estimate of the value of the produce or crop and determine the amount to be paid and submit his report to the Tehsildar. Thereafter the Tehsildar issues notice to the parties to file objections before him. After hearing the objections and making further enquiry as may be necessary the Tehsildar may confirm, modify or set aside the award, and if any amount is found due, pass an order for the payment of such amount and such order shall have effect of a decree for arrears of rent. The extent of this power and the manner in which it ought to be exercised was examined at length by their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Case No. 69 of 1956 Rawat vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 30. 4. 57. The observations of Wanchoo C. J. may be quoted here : - "we are of opinion that there is force in this contention of the applicants, and the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to decide in these proceedings the share of rent to which the land-lord will be entitled if there is any dispute about it. The jurisdiction is conferred on the Tehsildar under sec. 4-A, and that jurisdiction is merely this - Where the rent is payable by a division of the produce or an appraisement of the crop, the Tehsildar can proceed to make, or depute an officer to make a division, estimate or appraisement only under two conditions, namely where either the landlord or tenant neglects to attend at the proper time, or if there is a dispute about the division, quantity or value of the produce. Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 4 A and sec. 4 B, do not, in our opinion, contemplate that the Tehsildar would decide the share of the produce payable as rent under sec. 4-A. Both these clauses in our view assume that there is no dispute as to the share which the landlord is to get from the tenant, and the dispute is only about the neglect of one party or the other to be present for purposes of appraisement, or about the actual division or the quantity or value of the produce. As soon as their is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant about the share which the landlord should receive as rent, a question of determination of rent arises, and that can only be decided by an Assistant Collector under item 15 of Group B of the First Schedule of the Rajasthan Act No. 1 of 1951, and now under item 6 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. III) of 1955. The jurisdiction to decide this matter is in the Assistant Collector, and not in the Tehsildar. " In the present case it is clear that on 13. 2. 54 an application was put up before the Tehsildar Sanchore by Udaram and others to the effect that in the past rent was not paid through 'lata', that the Jagirdar was requested to have an appraisement of the crop, that he was deliberately avoiding the same as he was desirous of realising arrears on an inflated scale and hence it was prayed that an Amin be appointed to carry out the appraisement. It would thus appear that the question as to whether rent was payable by a share of the produce or not was itself in dispute. The Tehsildar decided the case on 5. 12. 55 i. e. , after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act We may again refer to the observations of the Rajasthan High Court in this Connection: - "we may also point out that the position has been made perfectly clear under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 under secs. 148 and 149 which deal with a similar state of affairs Sub-sec. (8) of sec. 149 makes it clear that in case any party objects that the rent is not based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop, or a division of the produce, or that no amount is to paid, or that the proportion of produce claimed by the land holder as rent is higher than is really due the Tehsildar shall not decide such objection, but shall direct the parties to get their rights decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, and in such cases the Tehsildar may on the application of a landholder direct the tenant to furnish a bond, with or without sureties, to pay the rent according to the final decision of the suit, within one month of such decision. " The appraisement which the Tehsildar makes can be used as evidence in a suit for determination of rent and arrears of rent following thereon. But where the Tehsildar passes a decree in favour of the Jagirdar according to the price of amount found by him on appraisement in a disputed case he has no jurisdiction to do so. It is no part of the Tehsildar to decide whether any part of the crop had been removed and to have that into account in making the division or making his appraisement. What is contemplated by the law is that the Tehsilder should deal with the produce actually found by him and divide it according to the shares of the land holder and the tenant or make an appraisement of the standing crop which he finds on the spot and calculate its value and then find out the amount due as the share of the land holder and pass an order accordingly. The learned Tehsildar in the present case, however, followed this law in breach rather than in observance. It was clearly stated before him that rent was not payable by actual division of the produce. It is doubtful if proper notices required under the Act were issued regarding the proposed appraisement by the Amin. It is equally doubtful if either Moolraj of Abheyraj could have been validly appointed to carry out the kunta in asmuch as the Act definitely required the appointment of an officer not below the rank of a Land Records Inspector. There is nothing on the record to show as to whether any of these persons ever occupied this capacity or not. It has been argued before us that none of these persons was ever so employed. However, the most important fact to be remembered in this connection is that when appraisement was done the crops were not standing. The appraisement was done in the middle of February and Kharif Bijri corp cannot be expected to be standing in the fields at that time. Thus there could be no question of appraising the standing crop and there was nothing which the Tehsildar or his Amin could have validly performed in the case. To conclude, therefore, we hold that the Tehsildar not only committed material irregularities in exercising the jurisdiction vested in him by the law but also assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in him. We therefore, allow this revision, set aside the orders of all the lower courts and direct the parties to get their rights, decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. ;