- (1.) THIS is revision petition under sec. 34 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against the decision of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 14th February, 1967 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Collector, Jolore dated 16-2-1966, a time-barred and otherwise also incompetent.
(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that Tehsildar Bhinmal instituted proceedings against the petitioners under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and ordered their ejectment from khasra No. 617, in village Narsana. The Collector rejected their first appeal and their second appeal was also rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner on dated 11-1-63. The Tehsildar Bhinmal submitted a report of compliance to the Collector, that the present petitioners had been physically ejected from the said land on 17-9-65. Subsequently, however, the Tehsildar passed an order dated 27-8-65 regularising the possession of the petitioners over the land in question. Aggrieved by this order of Tehsildar, one Shri Sona son of Shri Ladaji resident of Narsana went in appeal to the Collector who accepted the same and set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 27-8-65 whereby he bad regularised the possession of the petitioners over this land. The main grounds on which the Collector accepted the appeal of the petitioner-respondents was that they were already in possession of 243 Bighas and 15 Bisw&s of land were not entitled for further allotment of land under the rules and further that the land in question was Gair Mumkin Nadi and could not, as such, be alloted to the petitioner-respondents. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the second Appeal on two legal issues : - 1. The appeal was time-barred because a copy of the order of the lower court was filed on 27-1 67 whereas the appeal was preferred on 25-3-66. 2. The appeal was preferred on behalf of Lal Singh, Lachchman Singh, Karan Singh and Deep Singh but the memo of appeal was signed by Jaswant Singh Advocate whose Vakalatnama was signed only by Shri Lal Singh and none of the other appellants. I have heard the counsel and for the parties and perused the record of the case. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the delay in filing the copy of the Tehsildar's order relating to the subject matter of the second appeal, before the Revenue Appellate Authority, was a bonafide mistake. There were two sets of proceedings pending before the Tehsildar, one relating to the regularistion of the possession of the petitioners and the other under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Tehsildar had disposed of both these cases on the same day namely 27-1-65 and through a genuine mistake, a copy of the order in the case under sec. 91 was filed in place of copy of the order in regard to the regularisation of their possession over the laid. In support of this contention the appellant had filed affidavit alongwith a copy of the court's order on 27-1-67 and simultaneusly, an application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was also made. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned lower court, has without reasons, discarded the affidavit filed by the Advocate of the appellants. He cited Sarat Chandra Nag vs. Rati Kanta Polley to A. I. R. 1939 (Calcutta) page 711 and argued that under O. 41, Rule 1, the court has the power to dispense with the requirement of a copy of the order. He also argued that in their report dated 26-3-66, the office had not raised any objection to the effect that a copy of the trial court's order had not been filed, which he argued was tantamount to the admission of the appeal by the Court. As regards non-joinder of parties, the learned counsel cited 1962 R. L W. page 135 Nar Singh vs. Bhairon Das and contended that under O. 41 r. 4 where there is a common ground between the plaintiffs or defendants any one of them can file an appeal on behalf of all others. He further argued that failure to sign Vakalat-nama by the remaining three petitioners was merely an irregularity which the court can cure under its inherent powers. The respondent's case was argud by Shri Lekhraj Mehta and the Government Advocate. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 i. e. Sona contended that the revision was incompetent because there was no question at all relating to exercise of the jurisdiction by the lower court. He argued that the question whether delay in filing a copy of the order of the lower court was through a bonafide mistake or otherwise, was a question of fact and it was decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the case. He, therefore, urged that this decision cannot be interfered with by a revisional court. He also refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that failure of the office to raise objections amounted to the acceptance of the appeal by the lower court. His submission was that such reports are made by the clerk of office, who is not conversant with the intricacies of law. He stated that the mistake was not bonafide because an application for a copy of the court's order was made on 23. 7. 66 2 days before the appeal was actually filed and notices were issued to the parties on 13-4-56 that the copy was ready and the copy was obtained by the party on 2-1-66 and the party was utterly negligent because they did not file the copy with an appeal till Janurary, 1967 after a delay of 9 months. The learned counsel cited R. R. D. 1965 page 17 Sohanlal Chajjulal vs. Bolya wherein a D. B. of Board has held that an appeal or revision must accompany certified copy of the judgment of the lower court and failure to do so is fatal. As regards the second issue, the learned counsel argued that the Collector had set aside the order of regularisation passed by the Tehsildar and since the appeal had not been filed by the remaining appellants and because the period of limitation had expired, the Collector's order had become final in so far as the other appellants were concerned. The appeal was therefore incompetent. The learned counsel argued that the Vakalatnama was not signed by all the appellants, but only by Shri Lal Singh and since the memo of appeal was not signed by any one except the advocate, the appeal was not prooerly constituted. He also submitted that no application had been made on behalf of the other three appellants to sign Vakalatnama. The learned counsel cited RLW. 1965 page 92 Chuna vs. Chhogalai in support of his contention. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 i. e. , State of Rajasthan contended that the land in question was Gair Mumkin Nadi and under rules of allotment it could not have been alloted. The main point for consideration is whether the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had committed any irregularity in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by him or whether he has committed any material irregularity in regard thereto. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority has discussed all the facts relating to delay in the filing of the copy of the order of the trial court and has held that the delay was due to negligence and as such it could not be condoned. He has followed a ruling of the Board given in R. R. D. 1965 page 17 Sohan Lal Chajjulal Vs. Bolya. The Revenue Courts Manual prescribes the procedure to be followed in the matter of filing appeals and revisions. Rule 17 is mandatory and the Board have in R. R. D. 1965 page 17 Sohanlal Chajjulal Vs. Bolya held that failure to file documents mentioned in rule 17 and 32 is a defect which is fatal. I do not, therefore, find any thing wrong with the decision of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority in holding that the appeal was time-barred. He has correctly followed the ruling of the Board as laid down in R. R. D. 1965 page 17 Sohanlal Chajjulal Vs. Bolya.
(3.) IN regard to the second issue also I uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal was not properly constituted in as much as the memo of appeal was got signed by only one behalf of all the appellants, aggrieved by the Collector's order. They never made any application to rectify this omission. It can, therefore, be construed that they were not interested in persuing the appeal and were quite satisfied with the order of the Collector. After the expiry of period of limitation the Collector's order has become final and since there was no demarcation of Shri Lal Singh's share in the land, the appeal on behalf of the latter can not be regarded as properly constituted. They never came forward to assert their right to file an appeal or to associate themselves with the appeal filed on behalf of Shri Lal Singh. The facts of this case R. L. W. 1962 page 135 Nar Singh Vs. Bairon Dan are, therefore, not applicable. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the land in question being Gair Mumkin it was quite unfit for cultivation and, under rules of allotment, it can be allotted for purposes of cultivation. In the result I do not find any thing improper or irregular in the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority to warrant any interference with the same. There is no force in this revision petition which is, therefore, rejected. . ;