Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1961 DIGILAW 119 (RAJ)

Nathya v. Bholia

1961-05-26

R.N.HAWA, S.L.KAKAR

body1961
This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur dated 21.7.60 by which he has set aside the order of the Tehsildar Kotputli, dated 31.3.60 in a matter for correction of entries in Khasra-girdawari. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The facts of the case are that the opposite party Bholia s/o Ladu preferred an application on 27.2.60 to the S. D. O. Kotputli with the allegation that he had purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed dated 30.6.59 from one Harbai and had been cultivating it ever since and from before, that his crop was standing thereon even then, that he had come to learn that the previous Patwari had entered two khasra Nos. 294 and 290 out of it in the name of one Bholia s/o Jeeta who had never cultivated it nor was in possession thereof, or in any way concerned with it, and that on the remaining ten khasra Nos. detailed in his application the parentage had been entered to one Jeewan instead of Ladhu. The prayer was that the correction be ordered in favour of the opp. party. This application was forwarded for disposal to the Tehsildar who in his turn directed it for report to be made by the Patwari before 15.3.60. The Patwari made his report on 1.3.60 which remained pending to be put up on the date fixed 15.3.60. The Patwari reported that the disputed land had been purchased by the applicant from Harbai on 3.6.1958 and since then he was in cultivatory possession thereof; that on Khasra No. 284 and No. 259 Moolia s/o Jeeta had been entered in Smt. 2015 and Nathya s/o Balkrishan had been entered on Khasra No. 329 in Smt. 2014, but that the Lumberdars had been stating that ever since the date of registration of the sale-deed the land had been continued to be in the cultivatory possession of the opposite party Bholia; and that over the remaining khasra numbers, the parentage was entered to be Jeewan instead of Ladhu and that in the village there was only one Bholia s/o Ladhu, the opp. party. The opp. party. The opp. party made another application to the Tehsildar Kotputli on 5.3.60 that the report of the Patwari had been received but that 19.3.60 had been fixed in the case by which time the entry in the khasra girdawari would be made in the name of other persons and he will have to face litigation again. He, therefore, prayed that the Tehsildar may kindly reach the spot and have the correct entry made or direct the Patwari to enter the fields in his name. Upon the receipt of this application the learned Tehsildar fixed 11.3.60 and ordered notices to be issued to all concerned to be present on the spot on that date when he proposed to enquire into the matter. On nth March; 60 as he could not go to the spot, he fixed 14.3.60. This date was again postponed to 19.3.60, Notices were, however, issued to all the concerned and the Lumberdars and Patwari were also asked to be present on the site. It appears that the learned Tehsildar did not reach the spot even on the 19th but went there on 21.3.60 on which date also due notices were given to all concerned to be present on the site. On this date (21.3.60) he enquired into the matter and passed an order on 31.3.60 thereafter that the disputed land be entered in the name of Moolia and Nathya, rejecting the application of the opposite party Bholia with the observation that the application had been made only because of the sale deed having been effected in his favour by Harbai who had entered the house of Jeewan deceased in whose name the disputed land had originally stood. An appeal was preferred against this order to the Addl Collector Jaipur and holding that the Tehsildar could pass the order that he has as Revenue Officer only between the dates 15th Feb. and 15th of March and not after that, set aside the order of the learned Tehsildar without giving any directions as to what had to be done about the entries thereafter. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred. The only point to be determined in this appeal is whether the learned Tehsildar had the jurisdiction to pass the order that he has done in the matter or not. Rule 58 (i) of the Raj. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred. The only point to be determined in this appeal is whether the learned Tehsildar had the jurisdiction to pass the order that he has done in the matter or not. Rule 58 (i) of the Raj. Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 lays down the period for the Rabi inspection of the fields and crops by the Patwari from 16th Feb. to 15th March. The appendix I to Chapter I Part VI of the Rules lays down the Yearly Programme of the work of Tehsil Revenue Officer, and the month of March has been fixed therein to be the time for the checking of Rabi-girdawari. It is clear from the facts described above that the original application had been submitted by the opposite party on 27.2.60 and it had been forwarded by the learned S.D.O. to the Tehsildar for "disposal" on the same date. This application did not cite anybody as a respondent and it does not seem to be one u/s 136 of the Raj. Land Rev. Act, 1956. The other application was presented to the Tehsildar Kotputli on 5.3.60. wherein a specific request had been made that the Khasra-girdawari of that particular crop be made in his name after enquiry on the site. Thus the learned Tehsildar was seized of the case in his capacity as Revenue Officer responsible for the maintenance of the records in the month of March meant for the Rabi-girdawari being checked by him. When the application was received by him the period of inspection tour by the Patwari for the Rabi-girdawari had also not expired, there being still twelve more days to run for 16th March. The learned Tehsildar had, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the application for making the correct entry after enquiry on the site when he received the application. That he held the enquiry on the spot and in the manner laid down in Rule 58 (iii) of the Rules after issuing notices to all the concerned to be present is also quite clear from the record also before the close of the month of March is also quite clear. That he being responsible as Revenue Officer for the correct maintenance of the records, could make an enquiry, is also clear from the perusal of the provisions of Rule 351 read with rule 348 of the Rules. That he being responsible as Revenue Officer for the correct maintenance of the records, could make an enquiry, is also clear from the perusal of the provisions of Rule 351 read with rule 348 of the Rules. He is required during the course of his test-check, to see that this subordinates are discharging their duties properly and that records are being properly maintained, and that in accordance with R. 355 he is also required while testing khasra-girdawari to aim at ascertaining that all changes shown on the map, agricultural facts and all facts of possession had been recorded correctly. He is also required to go round the fields and check the work by varifying the facts from the persons present there. All these duties are required to be performed by him to make an enquiry. There is nothing in the rules or in any ejectment for the time being in force to debar him from making such an enquiry in writing. The only thing needed is that he follows the same procedure as laid down in Rule 58 (iii) for a Patwari, i.e. before starting his field inspection, he requests the Sarpanch or Panch of the village Panchayat to accompany him on his inspection tour simultaneously invites the estate-holders, lumberdars and cultivators concerned to be present to help him in making entries. If he does so, and in the course of discharge of his duties also records in writing the statements of certain persons on the spot, his action would definitely be considered to have been taken as a Revenue Officer responsible for the correct maintenance of the records, if it is done within the period of the month of March itself allowed to him under the Yearly Programme fixed vide Appendix I to Chapter IV Part II of the Rules. In the present case we find that the learned Tehsildar had followed all these provisions of law fully and had passed his orders in accordance therewith. He had, therefore, not done anything out of his jurisdiction and contrary to rules in force in this behalf. The learned Addl. Collector has not been able to appreciate the above provisions of law properly and he has clearly made a mistake in holding that the learned Tehsildar could act as a Revenue Officer only upto 15th March. He had, therefore, not done anything out of his jurisdiction and contrary to rules in force in this behalf. The learned Addl. Collector has not been able to appreciate the above provisions of law properly and he has clearly made a mistake in holding that the learned Tehsildar could act as a Revenue Officer only upto 15th March. The whole of the month of March having been fixed for his check under the Yearly Programme fixed for him, he could do this work up till the end of March. We therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Addl. Collector, restore that of the Tehsildar, without in any way committing ourselves to the correctness thereof, leaving the party feeling aggrieved thereby to proceed u/s 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, before the S.D.O. concerned.