Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1545 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. Rajendra Prasad

2008-06-03

G.K.TIWARI

body2008
Honble TIWARI, M.—Above cited two revisions and an application being similar in nature pertaining to the same disputed land and the same parties are taken together for common judgment. A copy of the decision may be placed in the file of each of the cases. 2. The facts in brief leading to the aforementioned cases are that Additional Collector Nagaur has started proceedings under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) on the basis of information received from certain persons, who claimed to be the representatives of the Rajput Community that the land bearing khasra No. 364 measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas located in village Dodiyana Tehsil Degana of Nagaur District is a cremation ground of which 300 sq. yards land is mutated illegally in the name of non-applicant Sonraj who has further transferred it to a number of persons stated in the complaint. A request was made to the Collector/Additional Collector to take action under Section 82 of the Act as cremation ground which is a community land for public purpose cannot be transferred to anybody by way of khatedari rights. On receiving this information/complaint, Additional Collector initiated proceedings under Section 82 of the Act. During the course of these proceedings, the petitioner filed two applications on 24.3.07 before Additional Collector. In one application he requested to call for the record from the office of the Sub-Registrar relating to transfer of the impugned land to the persons stated in the application. In the second application, he pressed for the dismissal of the proceedings under Section 82 of the Act on the ground that complainants/informants have not been given permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. to sue on behalf of the Rajput community who allegedly comprises of 500 persons. Thereupon Additional Collector vide his common order dated 19.12.07, rejected both the applications. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 19.12.07 of the Additional Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Nagaur wh vide his order dated 20.2.08 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the order dated 20.2.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed revision No. 2092/08, under Section 84 of the Act. 3. The petitioner has also filed revision No. 2091/08 in this Court under Section 84 of the Act against the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.12.07 of Additional Collector. 4. Aggrieved against the order dated 20.2.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed revision No. 2092/08, under Section 84 of the Act. 3. The petitioner has also filed revision No. 2091/08 in this Court under Section 84 of the Act against the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.12.07 of Additional Collector. 4. Simultaneously the petitioner filed third application No. 2154/08 under Section 9 of the Act with the request to intervene in the proceedings pending under Section 82 of the Act before Additional Collector and restrain him from acting illegally, exercising powers of general superintendence over subordinate revenue Court. 5. I have heard both the learned counsels in respected of the above cited three cases. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainants have not been accorded permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. for suing in representative capacity. As such proceedings under Section 82 of the Act are illegal and deserve to be quashed. The disputed land has already been converted for non-agricultural purposes and further transferred to different persons. The petitioner has also requested to call for the record from the officer of Sub-Registrar relating to the persons whom the disputed land has already been transferred through registered deeds. The Additional Collector has erred and acted illegally in rejecting the application for calling of the records and another application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. This land is not cremation land and it is rightly converted in the name of the petitioner. It was also argued that a reference in this regard earlier made by the Collector 20 years back was rejected. The impugned order dated 20.2.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority is also made illegally and without application of mind and as such both the orders of Additional Collector dated 19.12.07 and the order dated 20.2.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority deserve to be quashed. He also prayed for exericising supervisory power under section 9 of the Act to restrain Additional Collector and call for the record and drop the proceedings under Section 82 of the Act, as the disputed land is not agricultural land presently. 7. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, learned counsel for the non-petitioners argument that the petitioner had already appealed against the impugned order dated 19.12.07 of Addtional Collector before Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed by him vide his decision dated 20.2.08. 7. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, learned counsel for the non-petitioners argument that the petitioner had already appealed against the impugned order dated 19.12.07 of Addtional Collector before Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed by him vide his decision dated 20.2.08. Now a revision has been filed against the same impugned order dated 19.12.07 of Additional Collector which already stands dismissed by Revenue Appellate Authority. As such revision No. 2091/08 is not maintainable. With regard to revision No. 2092/08, in which the order dated 20.2.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority is challenged, it is argued that Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeal, as the impugned order of Additional Collector was interim in nature. It is the discretion of the court as to which record is to be called and which record is not required. It is also argued that there is no suit before Additional Collector but a matter of reference under section 82 of the Act which is exclusively within the power and jurisdiction of Collector/Additional Collector. The complainants/non-petitioners are only provides of information to the Collector that an illegality has been taken place, as the land of cremation is unlawfully regularised in the name of the petitioner. An enquiry in this regard is underway. Additional Collector has rightly dismissed the application of Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C., is it is applicable only in respect of the suit and not reference. With regard to the case No. 2154/08, under section 9 of the Act, it is argued that there is no impugnable order in this regard Besides the power of general superintendence over revenue courts is administrative in nature and cannot be resorted to as alternative to revision or appeal. He pressed for rejection of all the three cases. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsels, perused the impugned orders of lower courts and carefully gone through the record available on the file. 9. It is a matter of reference under Section 82 of the Act inwhich inquiry is on and proceedings are underway. He pressed for rejection of all the three cases. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsels, perused the impugned orders of lower courts and carefully gone through the record available on the file. 9. It is a matter of reference under Section 82 of the Act inwhich inquiry is on and proceedings are underway. Section 82 of the Act provides for calling and examining of record by Collector from any revenue court or officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings, and if Collector/Additional Collector is of the opinion that proceedings taken or order passed by such subordinate court or officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board of Revenue, if the case is of judicial nature. And the Board of Revenue thereupon will pass such order as it deems fit. Thus, obviously a reference made by Additional Collector is not an order but his opinion only made to the Board of Revenue for its order. As such provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. which provides for suing in representative capacity is not applicable in this case, as it is not a suit so there is no illegality when Additional Collector rejected rejected the application of Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. Besides it, non-petitioners are only complainants/informants to Collector about occurrence of an alleged illegality. 10. As far as calling of any record for examining the matter initiated under Section 82 of the Act is concerned, it is the discretion of the Collector/ Additional Collector as to which record is relevant for his examination and which is not. However the petitioner is free to provide any information to the Collector/Additional Collector as he thinks proper to bring to the knowledge of Collector in order to enable him conduct proper enquiry and examination of the matter under consideration. If Additional Collector has rejected the application for calling of the record from office of the Sub-Registrar being irrelevant to this case, no illegality is committed. Besides this, the order of Additional Collector dated 19.12.07 is interim in nature as proceedings of reference under Section 82 of the Act are still under consideration. If Additional Collector has rejected the application for calling of the record from office of the Sub-Registrar being irrelevant to this case, no illegality is committed. Besides this, the order of Additional Collector dated 19.12.07 is interim in nature as proceedings of reference under Section 82 of the Act are still under consideration. It is surprising to observe that the petitioner has filed a revision under section 84 of the Act against the impugned order dated 19.12.07 of Additional Collector which was already challenged by him in appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Nagaur, who has rejected this appeal on 20.2.08. This is not fair and appropriate on the part of the petitioner to file a revision against an order which was already rejected in appeal by the appellate court. Evidently, the revision No. 2091/08 is not maintainable at all and deserves to be rejected straight away. 11. As far as the impugned order dated 20.2.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority is concerned, there is neither any illegality nor any material irregularity nor any jurisdictional error in passing of this order by which appeal is rightly dismissed being against an interim order dated 19.12.08 of Additional Collector passed during the proceedings of reference under Section 82 of the Act which is still pending consideration before Additional Collector. As such revision No. 2092/08 also deserves to be rejected. 12. So far as the application No. 2154/08 is concerned, it is filed under Section 9 of the Act which provides for the power of general superintendence of Board of Revenue over subordinate revenue courts. This provision is primarily of administrative nature and cannot be resorted to as alternative to revision or appeal. Firstly, there is no specific order challenged by filing this application. The matter and proceedings of reference under Section 82 of the Act are still pending consideration and enquiry in this respect is still going on. Collector/Additional Collector is fully within his competence and jurisdiction to call and examine the record or order to satisfy himself about the legality of the order passed and regularlity or propriety of the proceedings undertaken. Any intervention or interference by this Court in the process of such examination and enquiry is unwarranted. The application under Section 9 of the Act is unspecific and thoroughly vague and as such cannot be allowed. 13. Any intervention or interference by this Court in the process of such examination and enquiry is unwarranted. The application under Section 9 of the Act is unspecific and thoroughly vague and as such cannot be allowed. 13. Resultantly, all the aforesaid three cases numbered as 2091/08, 2092/08 and 2154/08 fail and as such stand dismissed accordingly.