- (1.) THIS revision which has been wrongly described as an appeal has been filed against the appellate order of the additional Collector, Kota, upholding the original order of the Tehsildar, whereby the Land Records Inspector was directed to eject the applicant from the land in dispute.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The facts of the case have been set out at length in the judgment of the learned Additional Collector. In mutation proceedings that were commenced upon the demise of Ramdhan, an issue of the adoption of the applicant was referred to a Civil Court and the same Was decided in favour of the opposite party. On receipt of this finding from the Civil Court the mutation was decided in favour of the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party applied to the Tehsildar that as she was not in possession of the land in dispute the applicant should be ejected from the land and possession should be delivered to her The Tehsildar granted this application and directed the Land Records Inspector to dispossess the applicant. The applicant went up in appeal before the learned Additional Collector but met with no success and hence (his revision. It has been strenuously argued before us that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to order for ejectment of the applicant in the manner that he did in the case and as such his order should be set aside. It has also been argued that if the opposite party wants to recover possession a regular action ought to be commenced by her in that behalf. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party had frankly stated before us that as far as the order of the Tehsildar is concerned he is not in a position to support the same a$ it is evidently without jurisdiction. His contention before us however is that as possession over a portion of land in dispute had already been transferred to his client no interference should be made at this stage. This argument is clearly untenable as it is a well established maxim of law that no party should be allowed to take undue advantage of an act of the court. If the order in execution of which possession was delivered is set aside the provisions of sec. 143 C. P. C. would govern the case. We may also examine the ground advanced by the learned Additional Collector in support of his order. It has been observed by him that the decision of the Tehsildar amounted to the execution of the decree of the Civil Court and as the Revenue Court was bound to execute the same the Tehsildar had no other option but to pass the order that he did. This line of reasoning, to say the least, betrays an ignorance of what is meant by decree and its execution. Leaving aside the question as to whether a reference in a mutation case by the Revenue Court was justified or not whether the Civil Court should have entertained it or not, it is evident that the decision regarding mutation was passed by the Tehsildar and no decree whatsoever was granted by the Civil Court Hence no question of any execution of a decree of a Civil Court could possibly arise. Evidently the learned Additional Collector confused the sanction of mutation with the actual delivery of possession and as the former was allowed to opposite party he thought that the latter remedy should automatically follow over it. This is manifestly wrong. Recovery of possession is to be effected through a regular action in accordance with law and such an action is beyond the competence of Tehsildar. We therefore, allow this revision, set aside the orders of the lower courts and direct that all the proceedings taken by them upon the application of the opposite party shall stand quashed. It shall however be open to the opposite party to take such action in accordance with law as she may be advised to .;