MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Munsiff, Siwana dated November 24, 1988 by which he has held that the "patta" granted by the Gram Panchayat is compulsorily registrable and may be read in evidence for collateral purpose only. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus,
(2.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for injunction and demolition of the construction raised by the defendant-petitioner on the disputed land in respect of which a 'patta' was granted to him by the Gram Panchayat, Siwana. In support of his case, the defendant-petitioner filed the 'patta' granted to him and wanted to get if exhibited. THE plaintiff-non-petitioner raised an objection that the 'patta' was granted for over Rs. 100/-, it was compulsorily registrable and as such it cannot be exhibited as it is not registered under the Registration Act. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Munsif passed the impugned order. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the 'patta' was granted by the Gram Panchayat for and on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan, the provision of Government Grants Act, 1895 are applicable and as such it was not compulsorily registrable. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of this Court dated November 18, 1988 given in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 399/86- Siremal v. Chhaganraj. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner that the revision petition is not maintainable as no jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Munsiff. He also contended that the learned trial court has rightly hold that the 'patta' was compulsorily registrable and it may be read in evidence for collateral purpose only. Admittedly, (disputed 'patta' has been granted by the Gram Panchayat, Siwana under Rule 226, Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. Abadi land belonging to the Government and lying in the area of the Gram Panchayat, Siwana vested in it under Section 102-A, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It has been held in Champalal Vs. Rameshwar, (1) that Government Grants Act, 1895 is applicable to the State of Rajasthan. Thus the 'patta' was granted by the Gram Panchayat for and on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan. The provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 are applicable to it. It is clear from Section 2 of the Act that the provisions of Transfer of Property Act are not applicable to the 'pattas,' & 'sanad' granted under the Government Grants Act, 1895. Section 90 (1) (d), Registration Act. 1908 enshrines that Sanad, inam title-deeds and other documents purporting to be or to evidence grants or assignments by the Government of land or of any interest in land do not require registration. As such the disputed 'patta' did not require registration under Section 17, Registration Act. There is no force in the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner that the revision petition is not maintainable. It is clear from the order under revision that the learned trial court has held that the Registration Act was applicable in respect of the disputed 'patta' and in fact it was not applicable in view of the provisions of Government Grants Act, 1895 and sec. 90, Registration Act. By holding so, the learned Munsif wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Registration Act to decide whether it was compulsorily registrable or not. Thus he has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Munsiff, Siwana dated November 24,1988 is set aside. .;