- (1.) THIS is an application for review of a judgment of the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer dated 26.9.1956 of the former Ajmer State in a revision application under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and land Reforms Act, 1950.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The applicant who is a rent-free grantee from the Istimrardar of Mehrun Kalan (an estate which has since been resumed) asked for ejectment of the opposite party under sec. 32 of the aforesaid Act on the ground that he was a sub-tenant, that he was allowed to cultivate up-to the last cultivatory year and that inspite of protests, had continued to cultivate the land The opposite party contested this application with the plea that he was not a sub-tenant as alleged by the applicant but that he was a tenant of the estate-holder. The S.D.O. who tried the case found in favour of the applicant and the Collector confirmed the order of the S.D.O. and ordered ejectment of the opposite party. On a revision being filed before the Chief Commissioner by the opposite party it was held that secs. 31 and 32 of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and L md Reforms Act, 1955 conferred the status of a Bhooswami upon the opposite party and as such he was immune from ejectment. As it would appear from the judgment under review the question relating to the staying of proceedings under sec. 6(g) of the 1955 Act read with Rule 7 was also raised before the learned Chief Commissioner but no definite finding was given on the point as the case was decided on a different ground referred to above. In this review petition it has been argued before as that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in as much as the learned Chief Commissioner did not come to a definite finding with reference to sec. 6(1) of the 1955Act It has also been argued that the view taken with regard to the applicability of secs. 31 and 32 of the 1955 Act, is also erroneous in as much as the proceedings had commenced at a date earlier to the enforcement of the Act and as the Act was not given any retrospective effect the aforesaid provisions should not have been allowed to govern the case. We have given our serious consideration to both these arguments. We would first examine the applicability or otherwise of secs. 31 and 32 of the 1955 Act. The learned counsel for the applicant cited 1954 Revenue Decisions (U.P.) 51 in support of his contention that as the opposite party had ceased to be a sub-tenant after the institution of the suit for ejectment was filed against him, hence he could not be eligible to the benefit of the provisions contained in sec 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. It is not at all necessary to examine the facts of this case or to consider its analogical application to the present case for the obvious reason that, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party, this case was overruled by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in 1955 ALJ 276 In that case a Division Bench, in view of the decision in Shri Vikramsingh's case which his been cited before us on behalf of the applicant, referred the following questions to she Full Bench. "No. 1. - Would sec. 20 affect the rights of the parties to the suit even though the suit had been filed prior to coming into force of sec. 20? No. 2 - Whether the provisions of the U. P. Land Tenures (Legal Proceedings) (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1952 would make any difference to applying the provisions of sec. 20 to pending suits or appeals." The answer by the Full Bench to both these questions was that notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Land Tenures (Legal Proceedings) (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1952 a suit, appeal or other legal proceedings under sec. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act pending on the 30th June, 1952 will be decided with reference to any right which may have accrued to either party in the land, the subject matter of the suit, appeal or other proceedings under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950. Some of the reasons that were pointed out by their Lordships would apply to the present case as well in as much as there is similarly of provisions in both the Acts. For example sec. 6 of the U. P. Act has a striking similarity with sec. 6 of the Ajmer Act. The Rule making power of the State Government in both the Acts provides for rules for the disposal of suits and proceedings started under the Act. Reasons with regard to Rule 5-A. of the U.P. Act, however, would not be applicable to the present case. But the observations regarding the general scheme of the U.P. Act would apply to the Ajmer Act as well. (The purpose of the Zamindari Abolition Act as expressed in its preamble is to acquire the right, title and interest of intermediaries between the tillers of the soil and the State and to reform the law relating to land tenures). The Act provides for the vesting of all proprietory rights in the State............It creates new categories of tenure holders Bhoomidar. Hissedar and Assamis............The whole pattern of land tenure has been changed. New rights have been created and old rights abolished." Besides these reasons we may, with due deference to the learned Judges, state that secs. 3 and 78 of the Ajmer Act would lead to the same result. Sec. 3 lays down that the provisions of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act and all the Rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law and Rules for the time being in force In other words the provisions of the Ajmer Tenancy Act regarding ejectment of subtenants shall not be held to be operative in case they run counter to those contained in the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act. The inconsistency on the point is self apparent. Sec. 32 of the Ajmer Tenancy Act provides that a sub-tenant would be liable to ejectment if he does not vacate the land after the extinction of his sub-tenancy. As against this sec. 32 (2) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act lays down that every sub-tenant of land referred to in sub-sec. (1) shall as from the date of vesting hold such land as Bhooswami. Therefore sec. 32 lays down that all Bhooswamis and Kashtkars shall hold land directly from the State Government. Thus a liability for ejectment of a sub-tenant which may be enforceable under the Ajmer Tenancy Act would no longer be valid or subsisting after the enforcement of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act. The provisions of the Ajmer Tenancy Act shall yield on the point to those of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act by virtue of the provisions contained in sec. 3 of the latter Act. Sec. 78 bars the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts to settle, decide or deal with any question which is to be determined under the provisions of this Act. The continuance of a Bhooswami or his ejectment is evidently a matter dealt with within the Act and as such no revenue court could have taken cognizance of it after the enforcement of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act. In view of this matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Chief Commissioner came to a correct conclusion in the case. We further agree with the learned Chief Commissioner that it is unnecessary to determine as to whether the present proceedings should or should not be allowed to continue under sec. 6 of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act. Even if they had legally continued the result would not have been different from that arrived at by the learned Chief Commissioner. There is thus no substance in this review petition which we hereby reject.;