Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 642 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. Bhura

2002-03-21

H.S.PUNIA

body2002
PUNIA, Member –These two appeals have been filed under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (In short ``the Act) against the judgment passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer dated 15.2.96, whereby the appeal No. 83/91 preferred by the appellant Ramchandra and appeal No. 80/91 preferred by the appellant Radmal and others were rejected on the ground that the impugned order was passed by S.D.O. in the capacity of Land Record Officer on an application under Section 125 of the Act and appeal against an order passed by Land Record Officer lies before Director, Land Records, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. (2). Since the lower appellate court rejected both the appeals on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against an order passed by Land Record Officer and did not decide the appeal on merits, therefore, second appeal under Section 76 of the Act is not maintainable. Thus, Both these appeals are being treated as revision petitions. (3). Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment. (4). The learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that if the appeal was not maintainable before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority then he had no jurisdiction to reject the appeals but he should have returned the appeals for presentation to the proper court. He had relied upon case of ``D.P.O., Nortern Railways vs. Mohan Lal (1). (5). As against this, the learned counsel for the non petitioners has argued that the dispute was pertaining to the correction of entries in the land record and S.D.O., Kishangarh passed impugned judgment dated 22.2.91 in the capacity of Land Record Officer, on an application filed under Section 125 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to hear appeal against the order passed by Land Record Officer. Thus, appeals preferred by the petitioners were not maintainable before `Revenue Appellate Authority and he had to reject these appeals and there is no provision for return of memo of appeal in the rules provided in Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual and provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC are not applicable to the land record matters. He has cited Bhagwana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2). (6). I have considered the rival contention of the parties. (7). He has cited Bhagwana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2). (6). I have considered the rival contention of the parties. (7). It is not disputed that an application was filed before S.D.O., Kishangarh under Section 125 of the Act, which was decided by the order, dated 22.2.91 and certain corrections were ordered to be made in the revenue record. It is, thus, clear that order passed by S.D.O. was under Section 125 of the Act in the capacity of Land Record Officer. Section 75 of the Act deals with the first appeals against the original orders of the subordinate courts to the next higher courts as mentioned therein. Clause (f) of Section 75 of the Act is relevant here which reads as under : ``S. 75 first Appeals....(f) to the Director of Land Records from an original order passed by a Land Records Officers in matters connected with land records, and... (8). It is not disputed that the petitioners filed appeal against the order passed by S.D.O. in the capacity of Land Records Officer and the appeal was not maintainable before Revenue Appellate Authority but the only contention of the petitioners is that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority should have returned the memo of appeal for presentation to the proper court and he had no jurisdiction to reject the appeals. Thus, the only legal question, which arises for decision in these revision petitions, is whether the lower appellate court had jurisdiction to reject the appeal on the ground that the appeals should have been filed before the Director, Land Records. In the case Bhagwana Ram, Single Bench of this Board as held that there is no provision of returning appeal or revision for presentation to the proper court. If the court before which the appeal or revision is pending has no jurisdiction, then it has to reject that appeal or revision and the party may take advantage of those proceedings under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, if he could do so. In that case appeal was filed before Revenue Appellate Authority against an order passed by Land Records Officer. In that case appeal was filed before Revenue Appellate Authority against an order passed by Land Records Officer. It is also not disputed that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in the proceedings arising under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Board of Revenue is empowered to make rules consistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made under sub Section (2) of Section 261 of the Act with previous sanction of the State Government. The Board of Revenue in exercise of powers conferred upon is framed the rules with the previous approval of the Government of Rajasthan, which are contained in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, 1956. Therefore, the provisions of order 7 rule 10 CPC are not applicable to the Land Records matters. (9). The case of D.P.O., Northern Railways vs. Mohan Lal cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be attracted in the present case. In that case the petitioner filed an appeal before Distt. Judge, Bikaner under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act against the order of the Authority for the Payment of Wages Act. At the time of hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was raised by the non-petitioner that since the court of Distt. Judge, Churu had been created and the jurisdiction of Distt. Court at Bikaner has been limited to the revenue district of Bikaner from 1.5.77 and applicant was working at Ratangarh in the territorial jurisdiction of the court of the Distt. Judge, Churu, the appeal could only be entertained by the Distt. Judge, Churu. The learned Distt. Judge, Bikaner dismissed the appeal by upholding the objection raised by the non- petitioner. The matter went to the High Court in writ petition, then it was held that it is well settled that the appellate court can also return the memorandum of appeal presented to it for presentation to the proper court. It is, thus, clear the matter in the case of D.O.P., Northern Railways was pertaining to the hearing of appeal by the court of Distt. Judge. Hence this case is distinguishable on facts and law and it is not helpful to the petitioners. (10). It is, thus, clear the matter in the case of D.O.P., Northern Railways was pertaining to the hearing of appeal by the court of Distt. Judge. Hence this case is distinguishable on facts and law and it is not helpful to the petitioners. (10). In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeals filed under Section 75 of the Act before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer were not competent and Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against an order passed Land Records Officer. Therefore, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer had to reject these appeals. Therefore, order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is proper and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and calls for no interference. Thus, these revision petitions are devoid of any merit and these are hereby rejected. Pronounced in the open court.