H.D. Ujjwal— This revision application has been filed against an order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 17.11.1951 passed in an appeal from an order of the Collector Sikar dated 27.8.1951. 2. Kheta presented an application before the Tehsildar Sikar that he was khatedar of a certain piece of land and he had given that land for cultivation to Sultan Singh and others as sub-tenants and the rent was payable by him as khatedar but the sub-tenants were trying to pay the rent themselves which should not be accepted from them. He later deposited the rent in the Tehsil. Sultan Singh and others also deposited rent in the Tehsil. The Tehsildar kept the rent paid by the parties in Amanat. Kheta in the meanwhile approached the Nazim Sikar and represented to him that he was the khatedar and the rent was, therefore, payable by him and his sub-tenants had no right to deposit rent. The Nazim Sikar sent for the papers from the Tehsildar and after hearing the parties passed an order that Kheta was the khatedar and rent paid by him should be accepted while that deposited by the sub-tenants should be returned to them or paid to Kheta in the presence of the other party. Against this order the sub-tenants Sultan Singh and others filed an appeal before the Collector Sikar who held that the Nazim Sikar had no authority to send for the papers pending with the Tehsildar and pass any order. Against this order of the Collector. Kheta filed an appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order of the Collector and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that this revision application has been filed by Kheta. 3. It is contended that the Nazim Sikar had authority to pass the order under sec. 65 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 Kheta was admitted by the opposite-party to be the khatedar of the land and as such he was the proper person to deposit the rent under sec. 53 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act and there was no question of holding any enquiry into the matter. The Collector, it is urged, wrongly set aside the order of the Nazim and ordered further enquiry by the Tehsildar. 4. 53 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act and there was no question of holding any enquiry into the matter. The Collector, it is urged, wrongly set aside the order of the Nazim and ordered further enquiry by the Tehsildar. 4. Sec. 65 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 relates to decision of disputes respecting the class or tenure of any tenant, or regarding the rent payable by them or regarding entries in the annual registers. This section, therefore, did not apply to the present case as the question did not require settlement of any dispute regarding any of the matters mentioned in sec. 64. It was only a question of acceptance of rent. 5. It was urged on behalf of Sultan Singh and others that provision for deposit of rent was made in sec. 113 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, and they had deposited the rent under that section and the Tehsildar had the power to accept the rent and the Nazim could not interfere in the matter. 6. Under sec. 113 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 a tenant may make an application for permission to deposit in the court of the Tehsildar the amount of rent recoverable from him. Further procedure provided in sub-clause (2) of this section clearly shows that the tenant can deposit rent when the landlord refuses to accept the rent or when several persons claim the rent and the tenant entertains a bonafide doubt as to who is entitled to receive such payment. In this case there is no dispute about the acceptance of rent by the landlord who is Thikana Sikar. Therefore this section also did not apply. 7. It appears that the Tehsildar and the Nazim in Sikar have a dual capacity. They are servants of the Rajasthan Government and also perform certain duties as servants of the Thikana Sikar. The Tehsildar recovers rent from the tenants of Thikana Sikar not as a servant of the Rajasthan Government but as an Agent of Thikana Sikar. Similarly the Nazim Sikar acts as an employee of Thikana Sikar in matters concerning the realisation of rent from tenants of Thikana Sikar. The Tehsildar thus had a dual capacity and exercised functions of a Tehsildar of the Government and also acted as an Agent of Thikana Sikar. Similarly the Nazim Sikar acts as an employee of Thikana Sikar in matters concerning the realisation of rent from tenants of Thikana Sikar. The Tehsildar thus had a dual capacity and exercised functions of a Tehsildar of the Government and also acted as an Agent of Thikana Sikar. As the parties are the tenants of Thikana Sikar, the Tehsildar would not recover rent from such tenants as a Government servant. Rent was tendered to him by the parties in the capacity of an Agent of the Sikar Thikana. As such the Tehsildar was not acting under any of the provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. The Nazim in giving the order also acted as an employee of the Thikana Sikar and his action was also not covered by any law. 8. The learned Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner clearly do not seem to have taken note of the dual functions of the Tehsildar and the Nazim and have wrongly applied the Jaipur Tenancy Act and the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act to the proceedings taken by those officers. In the matter of accepting rent from the tenants of the Thikana Sikar they were under the control of the Rao Raja of Sikar who could order them to accept the rent from any person he chose and it was not open to the Collector or the S.D.O. 0? the Rajasthan Government to order from whom the Thikana Sikar should accept rent. 9. If applicant Kheta considered himself to be a khatedar and the landlord Rao Raja of Sikar did not accept him as a khatedar it was open to Kheta to file a suit for declaration in the court of the S.D.O, but he could not claim that rent should be accepted from him by Thikana Sikar. Similarly it was open to the other party to seek their remedy if their rights were infringed. 10. I, therefore, consider that no appeal in the matter lay to the Collector against the order which the Nazim Sikar had passed in his capacity as a thikana servant. The Tehsildar would comply with the order of the Nazim only in his capacity as a thikana servant and not as a Government servant. 10. I, therefore, consider that no appeal in the matter lay to the Collector against the order which the Nazim Sikar had passed in his capacity as a thikana servant. The Tehsildar would comply with the order of the Nazim only in his capacity as a thikana servant and not as a Government servant. If the Tehsildar was not a thikana servant it was open to him to ignore the order of the Nazim Sikar but no appeal could be entertained against the order of the Nazim. 11. I, would, therefore, with the concurrence of my learned colleague, accept the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner as being without jurisdiction. Jai Krit Singh, Chairman—An interesting point of jurisdiction is involved in this case. The learned counsel for the non-applicants urges that the Thikana Nazim has no jurisdiction over the Tehsildar. This view was upheld by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, remanding the case to the Tehsildar for disposal after proper enquiry. My learned colleague does not subscribe to this view. 2. Sikar was a jurisdictional thikana. The judicial (Civil & Criminal) powers of the Rao Raja of Sikar were taken over by the Jaipur Government, some years ago but he exercised the revenue powers till after integration of Rajasthan, under sec. 193 of the Jaipur State Grants-Land Tenures Act, 1947. 3. Government had deleted sec. 193 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act by the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1950, whereby the powers of Government exercised by the Rao Raja Sikar for purposes of revenue administration have ceased and the Tehsildars of the thikana have been recognized as Govt.servant from that day. But curiously enough, the Tehsildars, and the entire revenue staff under them are still in the pay of the thikana. Even the Assistant Collector as Nazim of the thikana, and the Collector as its Senior Officer get special allowance from the Rao Raja. Government orders approving this dual system of revenue administration in Sikar are implied in the above Ordinance, from which it is evident that Tehsildars in Sikar are revenue courts for purposes of judicial revenue work and are revenue agents of the thikana for purposes of collection of rent and management of agricultural land. 4. Government orders approving this dual system of revenue administration in Sikar are implied in the above Ordinance, from which it is evident that Tehsildars in Sikar are revenue courts for purposes of judicial revenue work and are revenue agents of the thikana for purposes of collection of rent and management of agricultural land. 4. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly recapitulated as below: — The applicants are the tenants-in-chief of a certain holding in village Bajore, District Sikar. The non-applicants are the sub-tenants of a portion of that holding and pay grain rents. The applicants requested the Tehsildar to allow them to deposit the rent of their holding, alleging that the patwari had refused to accept it and that some of their sub-tenants who bad failed to pay the rent in kind were conspiring to pay cash rent direct to the thikana with an ulterior motive. On the report of the patwari that the tenants-in-chief had paid the rent in the past, the Tehsildar allowed them to deposit the rent of their khata. The same day, the Tehsildar also allowed the sub-tenants to deposit Rs. 59/- as rent on the latters allegations that the tenants-in-chief had refused to accept it from them. | 5. The tenants-in-chief approached the Nazim protesting against the Tehsildars allowing the sub-tenants to deposit their rent in the Tehsil. The Nazim sent for the record from the Tehsil and ordered that the rent payable to the thikana was due from the tenants-in-chief which might be accepted from them and the rent deposited by the sub-tenants be paid to the tenants in chief or refunded to the depositors. 6. The sub-tenants appealed to the Collector claiming full tenancy rights in the land in their cultivation. The Collector was probably misled in the belief that the dispute between the parties was of a judicial nature, regarding title and status in the land the rent of which was deposited by both of them. But in their original application, the non-applicants had made it clear that they were the sub-tenants and that the tenants-in-chief were not accepting the rental from them. They could not, therefore, raise a new plea at a later stage. 7. But in their original application, the non-applicants had made it clear that they were the sub-tenants and that the tenants-in-chief were not accepting the rental from them. They could not, therefore, raise a new plea at a later stage. 7. As noted above, in the matter of collection of rent and management of agricultural land, the Tehsildar is the agent of the thikana from which he gets his salary, as has been admitted by the counsel for the parties. The Nazim gets special allowance from the thikana for the superior supervision of the collection work. He was, therefore, perfectly within his rights to ask the Tehsildar from whom the rent due to the thikana was to be realized. His direction to the Tehsildar to pay the rent deposited by the sub-tenants to the tenants-in-chief or to refund it to the depositors was also in order. This anomaly of the dual function of the Tehsildar and the Nazim in thikana Sikar is bound to continue so long as the former received his salary and the latter his special allowance from the thikana. To put a stop to this system which is likely to indirectly undermine the authority of the Collector in the district of Sikar, it is necessary for the Government to pay the salaries of the Tehsil-dars and his subordinate revenue officials in Sikar and to direct the Assistant Collector and Collector there not to accept any special allowance from the thikana. 8. Since the thikanas right of collection of rent through a paid agency has not been disturbed by the Ordinance of 1950 referred to above, the action of the Tehsildar as a paid agent of the thikana in accepting cash rents from the sub-tenants of the applicants for grain rented subtenancy holdings was rightly questioned before the Nazim and was perfectly subject to his control. 9. With these observations, I concur with my learned colleague, that the Collector had no jurisdiction to interfere with the control exercised by the Nazim over the Tehsildar as a thikana agent, in a matter which related to rent collection only and* which did not fall within the purview of matter of judicial revenue nature.