Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1961 DIGILAW 133 (RAJ)

Ratan v. Hazari

1961-06-29

B.L.RAWAT, KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body1961
This is a revision against the appellate order of the Collector, Ganganagar dated 18th April, 1961, upholding the decision of the Gram Panchayat dated 22.11.1960. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. In this case a very important question of law arises for determination namely whether the Gram Panchayats have been duly or validly empowered to take cognisance and dispose of applications under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by means of a Government Notification No. F. 6 (41) Rev. (B)/6o. The relevant facts giving rise to this question may be stated as follows. The non-petitioners Lalchand, Thakur and Bhagirath filed an application before the Tehsildar Ganga Nagar under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act claiming a right of way to their own lands through the lands of the petitioners Nathu and Jesram. The learned Tehsildar after keeping the application on his file for sometime transferred it for disposal to the Gram Panchayat of Mahiyanwali. The Gram Panchayat decided the case in favour of the applicants i.e. the non-petitioners before us, allowing them the right of way applied for. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners went up in appeal before the Collector Ganganagar. In their appeal they raised two contentions. The first point urged was that the Gram Panchayat had held the proceedings behind the back of the petitioners. The second ground taken was that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try an application under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Collector rejected both the contentions. Upon the first point he held that the proceedings were held ex-parte, on account of willful default of the petitioners. As regards the question of jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat over the dispute the learned Collector placed reliance on a Notification No. F. 6 (41) Rev. (8)/6o dated 17th June, 1960 and held that the Gram Panchayat had the necessary jurisdiction to try the case. In this revision before us it is urged that the learned Collector failed to properly appreciate this Notification and entirely mis-directed himself as to the law which governed the dispute. In order to dispose of this argument it is necessary to re-produce the Notification itself. The Notification reads as follows :— "No. F. 6(41) Rev.(B)/6o :—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sec. In order to dispose of this argument it is necessary to re-produce the Notification itself. The Notification reads as follows :— "No. F. 6(41) Rev.(B)/6o :—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, (Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956) the State Government does hereby direct that :— (1) The power conferred by the provision to sec. 128 of the said Act on a Tehsildar, of disposing of applications concerning boundaries of fields including the setting of disputes as to the route by which a holder of land shall have access to his fields otherwise than by recognised roads, paths, or common land including roads and paths mentioned as such in the Settlement records, shall be exercised in place of Tehsildar by the Village Panchayat of the village in which the land to which the dispute relates, is situate, and (2) an appeal against an order passed by a Village Panchayat in any case decided under the powers delegated to it by this Notification shall he to the Collector of the district concerned." From the perusal of the Notification it is clear that it has been issued by the Government in exercise of their powers conferred upon them by clause B of sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act reads as follows:— "260. Delegation—The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette : — (a) delegate all or any of its powers under this Act, except the power to make rules, to the Board or a Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records, (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder on any Officer or authority shall be performed and exercised by any other Officer or authority, specified in the notification, (c) require the Board or any other Officer to perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed and conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder on the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records, or (d) authorise any authority or Officer to delegate its powers under this Act, except the power to make rules, to any other authority or Officer." Our attention has been invited to the words "this Act" which occur in all the clauses" i.e. clause (a)(b)(c) and (d) of sec. 260 reproduced above and it is argued that in exercise of these powers the Government could delegate all or any of the powers under this Act" i.e. the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to the Board or a Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records or under clause (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act i.e. the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the rules made thereunder on any Officer or authority shall be performed and exercised by any other Officer or authority specified in the notification; or under clause c the Government may require the Board or any other officer to perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed and conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder on the Settlement Commissioner or the director of Land Records; or under clause (d) authorise any authority or Officer to delegate its powers under this Act i.e. the Land Revenue Act, except the power to make rules, to any other authority or Officer. It was further argued that an application under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is neither a power of the Government under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act nor is a duty imposed or power conferred by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, and therefore, under sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act the authority or jurisdiction to hear and determine an application under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act could not be transferred or delegated by the Government from an authority or court mentioned in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As we read the Notification No. F. 6(41) Rev. (B)/6o referred to above, we find that it purports to transfer two powers conferred upon a Tehsildar to the Gram Panchayat. The first power his the power conferred by the provision of sec. 138 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act on a Tehsildar. The next power is the power of settling of disputes as to the route by which a holder of land shall have access to his fields otherwise than by recognised roads, paths or common land including roads and paths mentioned as such in the Settlement records. 138 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act on a Tehsildar. The next power is the power of settling of disputes as to the route by which a holder of land shall have access to his fields otherwise than by recognised roads, paths or common land including roads and paths mentioned as such in the Settlement records. Sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as it stood on the date the application was submitted no doubt dealt with the dispute arising as to the route by which a land holder, shall have access to his fields otherwise than by the recognised roads, paths or common land including roads and paths mentioned as such in the Settlement records and was triable by a Tehsildar and therefore there can be no manner of doubt to that, it was power to try and hear this dispute which was transferred from the Tehsildar to the Gram Panchayat under the said Notification. But that was clearly overstepping the limits contained in sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, as it only empowered the Government to delegate only such powers or authority as were envisaged or contemplated under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In other words the jurisdiction or authority conferred by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act could not be transferred in the exercise of the powers under sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is therefore, clear that the Notification was ultra vires of the provision of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, and the learned Collector has committed an error of law in placing reliance over this Notification, in holding that the Gram Panchayat could dispose of an application u/s 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The result of the above discussion, therefore, is that the Gram Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction or power to try an application under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and both the courts below have acted without jurisdiction. The revision therefore is accepted and the case is remanded back to the Tehsildar to try and dispose of the case in accordance with law bearing in mind our above observations.