- (1.) THE following question referred by the Chairman by his order dated the 8th September 1969 for consideration by a Division Bench has come up before us. "whether in view of the omission of clause (g) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1936, by Rajas than Act. No. 8 of 1962, the conferment of the powers of the Director of Land Records on the Revenue Appellate Authority vide Government Notification No. F2 (172 ). Rev. D. Cr. 11, 61, dated the 11th June, 1963, is valid?"
(2.) THE learned Advocate General, arguing the case before us first took us into the chronology of the events in the case in order, as he said to provide the back grounds. On 29-4-59 Dr. Ratilal submitted an application to the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Jaipur to the effect that he had purchased certain land (Khasra No. 308) in village Manrampura Tehsil Sawai Madhopura in 1949, and that Parcha in respect of the land may be issued to him. As the Settlement operations in the Tehsil had ended, the file was transferred by the Asstt. Settlement Officer to the Collector, Jaipur on the 23rd of August, 1960. A notification was issued on 7-9-60 empowering the SDOs in respect of such matters and proceedings were thereafter carried on in the court of the S. D. O. THE SDO decided on 27-9-62 that the land in question was not "abadi" but agricultural and assessable to Land Revenue, and that Khatedari should be recorded in the name of Dr. Ratilal. The present petitioners submitted an appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 28-12-62. The notification, which is the subject matter of the question referred to us, was issued on 11-6-63. By his order dated 7-10-64, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, thereupon transferred the file to the Revenue Appellate Authority referring to the Revenue Board's judgment dated 15-6 64 in Revision No. 3 (Tonk)/1963 Ramkishore vs. Ramkaran, which held that such matters, decided by the SDO or Collector after close of Settlement operations, could be agitated in appeal before the Director of Land Records and not before the Settlement Commissioner. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 6-8-1966. A revision petition was filed before the Board on 4-11-66. The question now before us was referred for consideration by a Division Bench, during the hearing of this revision petition. The learned Advocate General proceeded to say that the Rajasthan Divisional Commissioner (Office Abolition) Act, 1962, Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1962, itself conferred the necessary powers on the Revenue Appellate Authorities by virtue of secs. 5 and 6 thereof, because in consequence of the provisions contained in these Sections, the Revenue Appellate Authorities took the place of the Divisional Commissioners Cl. (g) of Sub-sec. (1) of sec 26 of the RLR. Act was rightly omitted as it was in the circumstances no longer required. As the said Act itself conferred the necessary powers on the Revenue Appellate-Authorities, the notification dated the 11th June, 1963, was not necessary and was redundant. He also said that the petitioners themselves chose to proceed with their appeal in the court of the R. A. A. and could not be heard now against their own choice. He added that the petitioners did not raise the question of jurisdiction of the R. A. A. before the R. A. A. or even in their revision petition. The point which was raised before the Chairman as mentioned in para 1 of his order dated 8-9 69 was not about the jurisdiction of the R. A. A. , but about the competence of the Board of Revenue itself to hear a revision against on order passed by the R. A. A. as Director of Land Records In his reply, learned counsel for the petitioners said that it is immaterial who raises the question of jurisdiction and at what stage. He also said that points made out by the learned Advocate General on this aspect of the matter were beyond the scope of the question referred to the Division Bench. He proceeded to say that the post of Director of Land Records for Rajasthan was abolished with effect from the 16th December, 1952. By notification No. F26 (1) SL/52 dated 13 4 53, it was ordered by Government that the Divisional Commissioners shall function as controlling authorities for Land Records work under the general supervision of the Board of Revenue and that they would also hear appeals against orders of Collectors & Assistant Director, Land Records in respect of Land records staff. This delegation of the functions of the Director of Land Records to the Commissioners was administrative and did not cover such functions as hearing appeals. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,, 1956 came into force on the 1st July, 1956. Secs. 75 (1) (f) and 76 c) of this Act contain specific references to "the Director of Land Records" in regard to appellate powers Sec. 19 of the Act reads as follows: "the State Government shall appoint for the whole of the State a Director of Land Records and may appoint as many Additional & Assistant Directors of Land Records, as it may consider necessary. " It was obligatory under the section to appoint a Director of Land Records which was not done. He also said that the argument of the learned Advocate General based on sec. 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1962, would conceivably have been valid, if the Divisional Commissioners had been vested with, or delegated, the powers to hear appeals under secs. 75 (1) (f) and 76 (c) of the RLR Act, before Rajasthan Act No 8 of 1962 came into force. Conferment of the powers of the Director of Land Records on the Revenue Appellate Authorities by notification of the 11th June, 1963, was, he said, invalid because clause (g) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 26 of the RLR Act, under which powers of Director of Land Records could be conferred, had itself been omitted by Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1962. [ He also referred to the Board's judgment dated 12-4-66 in Thikana R. S. Kuchaman vs. State (1967 RRD 39) in which it has been observed that "the Board of Revenue is also the Director of Land Records" No notification etc. has, however, been referred to in the judgment in support of this. The learned Advocate General emphasised that the bench need not confine itself to the question referred to it, but could frame a fresh question and answer it appropriately to meet the requirement of the case and could pas such other orders as may be recessary, since the entire case was before it. Government order No. F 49/appt (A)/52 dated the 12th December, 1952 has come to our notice which contains a clause that" the Board of Revenue be constituted as the Director of Land Records". There is, on the other hand, a notification No. F1 (214) Rev. D/56 dated 26-9-56, issued under clause (h) of Sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, conferring certain powers of the Director of Land Records on the Settlement Commissioner. We do not, however, think that we are called upon at the stage to go beyond the specific question referred to us. We have seen Rajasthan Gazette dated 27th June, 1963 Part IV (C) in which the Notification in| question dated the 11th June, 1963, has been published. The notification as pr|inted therein purports to be in exercise of powers conferred by "clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec, 26 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956". This clause (b), however, refers to the conferment of power of Assistant Collectors on Tehsildars. If ' (b)' is a mis print for ' (g)' the position is that on the date of the Notification, clause (g) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act did not exist, having been omitted by virtue of See. 4 of the Rajasthan Act No 8 of 1902 read with the Schedule thereto. There is no other clause in Sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 under which the notification could possibly have been issued.
(3.) THE notification is thus without proper authority of law. Oar answer to the question referred do us is, therefore, in the negative. .;