Ram Singh v. Ghisi — 1961 DIGILAW 132 (RAJ)

This is a revision directed against the order of the Additional Collector, Bharatpur, dated 17.4.61, reversing the order of the Tehsildar Bayana dated 12-12-60. It arises out of the following circumstances : The applicant, Ram Singh, made an application to the Tehsildar Bayana on 3.10.60 with an allegation that he had been cultivating the disputed land as a Khatedar for a long time and had been in cultivatory possession thereof even during the kharif crop of Smt. 2017, but that the Patwari had, in collusion with the opposite party, left the entries against khasra No. 328 and 329 blank and had entered the remaining khasra Nos. 366, 367, 369 and 373 in the name of the opposite party. The request was that the Patwari be ordered to enter the whole of the disputed land in his name. The learned Tehsildar forwarded it to the Inspector Land Records the same day to be enquired into at the time of Partal in the presence of the Panch and the patels. The Inspectors in his turn forwarded the same to the Patwari to be put up on site. Evidently, that was the time of khasra girdawari for the kharif crop vide Rules 58 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It appears that the disputed khasra numbers were taken in "Tanaza kasht". In the fard prepared, the [opposite party was stated to be the sabiq kashtkar and the applicant to be the present one. The Inspector Land Records, it appears, recorded the statements of certain persons besides the parties, and submitted the case with a simple report that both the parties were alleging their cultivatory possessions over the disputed land. On what date did the Inspector report this case to the Tehsildar under Rule 199 of the Rule is not clear from the fard on the record. But it contains an order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 12-12-60 which seems to have been passed after recording the evidence of the parties on the same day, probably on the spot. The order does not contain any reasons. But it says that the girdawari of the disputed land of Smt. 2017 be done in the name of the applicant—Ram Singh. The opposite party went in an appeal against this order to the Addl. Collector. The order does not contain any reasons. But it says that the girdawari of the disputed land of Smt. 2017 be done in the name of the applicant—Ram Singh. The opposite party went in an appeal against this order to the Addl. Collector. He alleged himself to be the Khatedar-tenant of the disputed land and contended that the entry had been ordered to be amended in favour of the applicant, wrongly. The learned Addl. Collector following the authority of Shyamlal V/s Bipati, 1958 R. R. D. 163, held the action of the Naib Tehsildar to be unauthorised. The reason for his decision was that the learned Naib Tehsildar had no authority under Rule 351 read with Rule 348 of the Rules to order the correction of any entry in khasra-girdawari after the completion of that work, even though he was also influenced by the decision of the Sub-divisional Officer Bayana in a criminal proceeding under sec, 145 Cr.P.C. Hence this revision. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The judgment of the learned lower appellate court has been assailed on the ground that it should not have relied on the judgment under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and that the proposition laid down in 1958 R. R. D. 163 has been mis-undesrstood. In order to remove all possible confusion regarding the duties of the various revenue officers under the Rules so far as they relate to the making of entries in the khasra-girdwari vis-a-vis the correction of entries under sec. 126 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, we propose to examine the law in this behalf in detail. It is the Chapter IV of the Rules which deals with the preparation of the quadriennial and annual records. Khasra-girdawari is one of the quadrennial records. Rule 5 8(i) deals with the duties of the Patwari to maintain the map and the khasra. The Patwari is directed therein to make three field inspections every year of every village in his circle and one more in Ganganagar District. Khasra-girdawari is one of the quadrennial records. Rule 5 8(i) deals with the duties of the Patwari to maintain the map and the khasra. The Patwari is directed therein to make three field inspections every year of every village in his circle and one more in Ganganagar District. The dates of these inspections given therein are as under":— Name of Crop Date of commencement Date of completion (i) Kharif (Shialu) 1st October 31st October (ii) Rabi (Unhalu) 16th February 15th March (iii) Zaid (Vishesh-Unhalu) 16th April 15th May These periods are known as period of khasra girdawari during which ordinarily all entries regarding khasra have to be made unless they have been varied by the Collector under sub-rule(ii) thereof. Vide sub-rule(iii) the Patwari is required to draw up a regular programme of his inspection tour and visit to the villages and end a copy thereof atleast 3 days before the field inspection is due to start to the village Panchayat with the request that the Sarpanch or the Panch of the village may accompany him on his tour of inspection of the fields situated in the village. He has also to inform the estate-holders, Lumberdars and cultivators concerned so that they may also be present to help him in making the entries. The checking of entries of khasra-girdawari is the responsibility of the Inspector Land Records and he is required vide Rule 189 read with Rule 178(i) of the Rules to perform this duty at each season. This checking is to be done vide yearly programme of the work of an Inspector of Land Records—Appendix Part II, in the months of October, December, March, April and May. It is not stated therein as to checking of which khasra-girdawari would be done in the months of October and which in March. But they should obviously relate to the checking of kharif and Rabi crops, respectively. Next comes Rule 355 read with Rule 348 of the Rules. The Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar is required thereby to test the correctness of the work of khasra-girdawari and he should aim at, as laid down thereunder, "ascertaining that all changes shown on the map, all agricultural facts and all facts of possession have been correctly recorded in it. Next comes Rule 355 read with Rule 348 of the Rules. The Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar is required thereby to test the correctness of the work of khasra-girdawari and he should aim at, as laid down thereunder, "ascertaining that all changes shown on the map, all agricultural facts and all facts of possession have been correctly recorded in it. Mistakes regarding changes in field boundaries can never be detected unless inspecting officer goes round the field; nor can mistakes of crops or of facts of possession be discovered unless the field is fully in sight and is correctly pointed out to the persons who verified the facts. The practice of partalling fields from a distance is dangerous in as-much-as it leads to involuntary endorsement of errors in the records and, on no account, be adopted". An yearly programme of work of Tehsil Revenue Officers has also been fixed by Appendix I to Chapter I para IV, month-wise. The checking of Khasra-girdawari has been earmarked therein for the months of October, March and April, May and June (uptil 15th). Obviously, this checking by the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar of the khasra-girdawari has to be completed during this very period. Besides, the routine test-checking as laid down by R. 355 read with R. 348 of the Rules, the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar has also to give his decision in respect of entries to be made, vide Rule 58(iii), when there is a difference of opinion between the Patwari and the the Sarpanch or the Panch and the matter is to be placed immediately before him; and vide Rule 199, when the Land Record Inspector finds any dispute regarding any entry and reports the matter to the Tehsildar. The time for doing this work will also be governed by the yearly programme of the work of Tehsil Revenue Officers described in Appendix I to Chapter I of Part VI of the Rules, if not by the calendar for the inspection tours of the Patwari laid down by Rule 5 8(i) thereof. It should be clear that in the case of a dispute, it cannot be said that an entry in khasra-girdawari has been made unless and until a decision has been given by the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar concerned. It should be clear that in the case of a dispute, it cannot be said that an entry in khasra-girdawari has been made unless and until a decision has been given by the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar concerned. Such an entry can be deemed to have been made only after correction has been made in accordance with the decision of the Tesildar or the Naib Tehsildar. It is, therefore, to be finalised within the period stated above. It should also be obvious that such an officer has to follow the procedure prescribed for the Patwari for making such entries vide Rule 59(iii). That is to say, he will have to give information to the estate-holders, lumberdar and cultivators concerned as well as village Panchayat and others of the date of his visiting the site well in time to enable all of them being present at the time of his visit thereto. He will have also to make enquiries from them before arriving at any decision. There cannot be, in our opinion, any objection to his recording the evidence of such persons in writing (if he thinks necessary) on the spot itself and deciding the case on that basis then and there. A decision can be given only after an enquiry, which can always be both oral as well as in writting. It would thus appear that under Rule 355 and under the special circumstances mentioned in Rules 5 8(iii) and 199 of the Rules, the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar is competent to make or alter entries in the khasra-girdawari ; provided he does so within the period laid down vide Rule 5 8(i) or the Appendix I to Chapter I of part VI, or at any rate before the harvesting of the crops to which the test-checking proposed to be done by him or the dispute regarding the entries relates, and further, provided that he dors so after giving a notice to all the persons concerned (specially those who are likely to be affected by his order) and the Sarpanch and the Panch concerned as well as Lumberdar and cultivators concerned, and the estate-holder, if any, and letting them all have an opportunity of being present to be heard in the matter. Otherwise, such an entry would be an entry made at a time not authorised by law as well as/or behind the back of the parties, evidentiary value whereof would suffer as held in 1957 R.R.D. 38. The question of ordering an entry at the time of Partal by a sub-divisional officer was examined by the Board in Paras V/s. Shri Bhagat, 1956 R.R.D. Page 287, also. It was held that the correction ordered during the course of Partal without making any enquiry and behind the back of a party was vitiated. This very view has been taken in Appeal No. 17 (Bharatpur) 1958, Cariva Vs. Ghanshyam decided on 15.11.58. The correction of the entry in khasra-girdawari by the S.D.O. at the time of carrying out of his periodical field inspection of khasra-girdawari under Rule 362 of the Rules was up-held therein and the aggrieved party was directed to proceed u/s 136 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. There is another occasion for the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar to deal with the entries in khasra-girdawari, viz., while inspecting the work of Inspector Land Records under Rule 351 of the Rules. As laid down in Badri Prasad Vs. Sheo Nath, 1958—R.R.D. 80, "the Tehsildars and the Naib Tehsildars are required to test the records of every Inspectors circle in the Tehsil during one year as may be fixed by the Collector. The manner in which this work can be attended to is given in Rule 351. The object of the test is to ensure that the Inspector is discharging his duties properly and that records are being prepared accurately and in accordance with Rules. The attesting officers, if they detect mistakes while carrying out their tests, are competent to order their corrections. This is the function they are required to do as Revenue Officers". Obviously, this is also to be done within the periods allowed to such officers vide the yearly programme of work fixed of them by Appendix I to Chapter I Part VI of the Rules. To what extent can such a correction be ordered, however, is a matter for examination. This would depend upon the time when such a test is carried out. To what extent can such a correction be ordered, however, is a matter for examination. This would depend upon the time when such a test is carried out. If it is being done at the time fixed for the preparation of the khasra-girdawari vide Rule 58(f) or at the time of inspection thereof fixed by the above-referred Appendix I, the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar should be able to pass any order that he deemed fit after making enquiry, orally or in writing, in the manner laid down by sub-rule (iii) of Rule 55 as described above. In case, however, the test-check is carried out at any other period, the competence of the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar to order corrections would be naturally restricted and should in the interest of justice as well as equity be based on the common consent of the parties concerned, or a consensus of opinion amongst the villagers. The order for such a correction would manifestly differ from the order passed while "Partalling" the Khasra-girdawari entries themselves and/or while deciding the disputes under Rule 58(iii) or Rule 199. In case of such disputes the entry itself would not be deemed to have been made until the decision has been given in that behalf by the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar; where as in case of test-checking at any other time, the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar would not be required to make an entry ab initio, but only to correct an entry which appeared to him, as testified by all the parties concerned or by a common concensus of village opinion, to have been wrongly made by the Patwari. Such correction, if contested, would fall within the purview of sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and outside his ministerial functions as Revenue Officer prescribed under Rule 351 of the Rules for the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar. It will be his duty, therefore, to ask the party disputing the correctness of such an entry to approach the S.D.O. u/s 136 referred to above, and not take upon himself. It will be his duty, therefore, to ask the party disputing the correctness of such an entry to approach the S.D.O. u/s 136 referred to above, and not take upon himself. There can be yet another occasion when the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar is required to deal with the entries in the Khasra-girdawari, when an application is presented to him against an entry already made, or apprehended to be made, by the Patwari during the course of a khasra-girdawari while such a work is going on and the period meant therefor has not expired. Under which provisions of the Rules this contingency would fall, is not quite clear. There is no specific mention in the Rules for the entertainment of such an application by him. Yet, because of his being the highest authority in the Tehsil for dealing with such matters and his having under the provisions of the Rules referred to above a responsibility for ensuring correctness of the entries in khasra-girdawari, he does deal with such application not infrequently. The instant case has also sprung up in this very manner. The Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar may forward such an application to the Inspector Land Records, who may in his turn forward the same to the Patwari, who would return it with factual report. The Inspector Land Records may deal with it under Rule 199 or Rule 178 and submit his report back to the Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar, entering Tanajakasht or not, as the case may be. Where a Tanazakasht is reported, the Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar would deal with it and dispose of it in the manner already discussed. The question, however, is what he should do if it is reported that there was no Tanaza-Kasht; or when he, for one reason or another, does not forward the application presented to him to the Inspector Land Records, but keeps it with himself to be dealt with at the time of his Partal. Yet again, he can come across such a case if the application is made to him, orally or in writing, while he is actually Partalling the entries in khasra-girdawari during the period meant for him to do so in accordance with Appendix I referred to above. Yet again, he can come across such a case if the application is made to him, orally or in writing, while he is actually Partalling the entries in khasra-girdawari during the period meant for him to do so in accordance with Appendix I referred to above. We have to pause here and consider whether the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar has got an authority to take up the case directly without the intervention of the Inspector Land Records and the Patwari, or over their heads, and decide the matter in his capacity as a Revenue Officer responsible for the correct maintenance of the land records also or not. Preferrably, he should have the case channelised only through the Inspector Land Record, and refuse to interfere if no Tanaza Kasht has been found to have been entered. But there is nothing in Rules to prohibit or prevent him from taking the case directly also. Rule 348 may not cover this. But it also does not stop him. Rule 351, however, does lay down duties on him which can cover even this part of the work. The duties prescribed in Rule 355 for the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar also should cover his competence to deal with such a contingency. When he is required to see that all changes shown on the map, all agricultural facts and all facts of possession have been correctly recorded in the khasra, and also test it by acting on the lines laid down therein, he cannot afford to ignore a representation made to him directly while partalling the fields, or sent back to him by the Inspector Land Records or the Patwari stating that the complaint made was either not correct or could not be looked into because of any technical difficulties. Directing the party so applying to approach the S.D.O. u/s 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act would be highly preferrable. But he can himself enquire into the representation, if he so liked or deemed fit, in the same manner as he would have done, after giving notice to, and letting every one concerned have an opportunity of being heard, when approached under Rule 58(iii) or Rule 199 of the Rules. Ofcourse, he has to do it within the same limits as he would deal with a case put up to him under these Rules. Ofcourse, he has to do it within the same limits as he would deal with a case put up to him under these Rules. A view, no doubt, has been taken by the Board in Shyamlal Vs. Deepa, 1958 R.R.D. 163, that "if any correction is ordered by the Tehsildar during the course of test work under Rule 248 of the Rules, it would evidently be the decision of a Revenue Officer taken summarily on the spot in discharge of his function of assuring proper maintenance of land records. But when an individual challenges the validity of a particular entry made by the village Patwari and when the Tehsildar acts as a Revenue Court by recording evidence of the parties at Tehsil Headquarters and closes up the findings on the basis of that evidence, it cannot be said that a decision which has resulted from this procedure is included within the scope of this test work. It is evidently the decision of a dispute regarding an entry which has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of law alone. Such a dispute is covered by sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act." But we should not forget that the emphasis in the above observation is on the recording of the evidence by the Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar at the Tehsil Headquarters in his capacity as a Revenue Court, which definitely he is not empowered to act. This would be entirely different from his enquiring of all the persons concerned summoned specially and present at the time of his Partal during the period fixed for it and taking decision on the spot and ordering correction as a result thereon. Unless he violates in any way the timings fixed for his doing this work and the provisions laid down in Rule 58(iii), he can very well deal with the applications received by him in the manner under discussion also and order corrections on the basis of the enquiry made by him in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. Unless he violates in any way the timings fixed for his doing this work and the provisions laid down in Rule 58(iii), he can very well deal with the applications received by him in the manner under discussion also and order corrections on the basis of the enquiry made by him in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. It may, however, be emphasised that this status would not be available to him if he does not deal with such an application within the period available to him under the Rules for the inspection of khasra-girdawari work and lets the matter remain pending to be taken up after the expiry of that period, or if he, instead of enquiring into, and deciding it, on the spot, takes it into his head to make the enquiry just like other cases on his file at Tehsil Headquarters in the court after the lapse of the time within which alone he has got the jurisdiction to dispose of such cases. One more contingency cannot be lost sight of while making the observation. It is that the enquiry may be begun well within the period prescribed and in the manner laid down; but due to causes beyond his control it may drag on beyond the time stipulated and may not be finished before its close. If it is still disposed off finally before the harvesting of the crop concerned, it may be excusable and the decision given by him may not suffer from want of jurisdiction. In case, however, it is dragged on even after the lapse of this period, the decision of the Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar would certainly become vitiated for want of jurisdiction; and the party requesting the correction would have to be asked to proceed u/s. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Having thus laid down the proposition of law in this behalf, we proceed to examine the present application As stared in the very beginning, the proceedings started on an application during the period fixed for the preparation of Khasra-Girdawari of the Kharif Smt. 2017. The Inspector Land Record also entered the matter into Tanaza under Rule 199 within that period. Of course, he did not fully carry out all the requirement of that Rule. But that alone did not come in the way of a correct decision by the Naib Tehsildar. The Inspector Land Record also entered the matter into Tanaza under Rule 199 within that period. Of course, he did not fully carry out all the requirement of that Rule. But that alone did not come in the way of a correct decision by the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar, however, did not take up the case for decision uptil 12th December, 1960. The utmost period allowed to him for the purpose under the Appendix I of the Rules referred to above was up to 31st October, 1960. He could have carried on the proceedings, if the volume of the work so demanded, uptil the harvesting of the standing crops. He has, however, done neither. Nor he has given any reason as to why he did not take the matter of deciding the dispute under Rule 199, reported to him by the Inspector Land Records, earlier. He has, therefore, very clearly decided the case, commencing all his enquiry long after he had lost his jurisdiction in the matter. His order, therefore, cannot be up-held; and it has been rightly set aside by the learned Addl. Collector, although without discussing and specifying this ground clearly. Thus the applicant has suffered in the case for no fault of his; yet he cannot be helped now after the lapse of so much time. He should take recourse to the proceedings u/s 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act; and until then the entry has to continue to remain as was made by the patwari during the course of his inspection, and the entries should continue to be disputed. The dispute would be decided finally on the basis of the order that the learned S.D.O. would be pleased to pass in the proceeding us 136 subject, of course, to its confirmation or otherwise by the court of appeal or revision. We may also remark for the guidance of the courts and officers below that they should not be influenced by the decisions of the criminal courts in such cases, but decide the case before them in accordance with the relevant laws according to their best judgment upon the evidence produced before them. To conclude, there is no force in this revision and it is hereby rejected.