Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 281 (RAJ)

Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2017-01-24

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged his order of transfer dated 10.10.2016 from Maganwala, Tehsil Kolayat to Godu, Tehsil Kolayat on the ground that the same has been passed without considering the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record) Rules, 1957 (for short, Rules of 1957) and more particularly, Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1957. 2. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Inder Singh & Another vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (CWP No. 5960/2006) decided on 28.11.2006 wherein it has been laid down that the Collector is required to exercise the powers by satisfying himself that the transfer of a Patwari is necessary for in efficiency of the administration and that the compliance of the provisions of Rule 9 and Rule 412 were necessary. 3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. 4. There is no dispute with the argument that the transfer of a Patwari can only be made in accordance with the Rules of 1957. There is also no dispute with the principle of law as laid down in the case of Inder Singh (Supra). It is not disputed that the order of transfer can only be passed by the Collector and that Collector is the only appropriate authority to pass an order of transfer in the case of a Patwari. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the said rules to see whether the order of transfer passed in the present case is de hors the provisions of Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1957 or not. The same reads as under:- 9. Transfers. -(i) The Collector may transfer a Patwari from one circle or tehsil to another in his own district: but transfer from one district to another in the same division shall be made by the Divisional Commissioner and transfer from division to another divisions shall be made by the board of revenue. The Sub-divisional Officers are also empowered to transfer a Patwari from one circle to another in the same tehsil or to another tehsil in their sub-division on sufficient grounds. Provided that if a Patwari is transferred out of the district on his own request he shall rank junior to existing Patwaris of that district. The Sub-divisional Officers are also empowered to transfer a Patwari from one circle to another in the same tehsil or to another tehsil in their sub-division on sufficient grounds. Provided that if a Patwari is transferred out of the district on his own request he shall rank junior to existing Patwaris of that district. (ii) Transfers of patwaris should not be made unless the officer has satisfied himself that such transfer is necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of a Patwari. The Patwari going on transfer shall have to complete all his record and clear all his work in arrear before handling over charge to his successor. The Tehsildar may, with the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer, get the incomplete record completed by employing extra staff and paying such staff by deducting the required amount from the salary of the negligent Patwari. The unsatisfactory work or conduct of a Patwari should not be a ground for his transfer but for penal action. From perusal of the above provision, it is evident that:- (a) The order of transfer can only be passed by the Collector/Divisional Commissioner & Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be; (b) The Officer can pass the said order only in case he is satisfied that the same is for filling up a vacancy created due to various reasons and in case of exigency of service or better administration; (c) He cannot transfer on account of unsatisfactory work or conduct; (d) It cannot be made in order to adjust or accommodate individuals; 5. A perusal of the transfer order shows that all the ingredients of Rule 9 are satisfied. The order of transfer has been passed by the Collector and same has been passed on account of exigency of service as also on account of a vacancy and the said place where the petitioner has been transferred was lying vacant. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Inder Singh (supra) does not help in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Collector had passed the order of transfer on the direction of Deputy Secretary. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Inder Singh (supra) does not help in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Collector had passed the order of transfer on the direction of Deputy Secretary. The Court came down heavily on the said transfer order passed by the Collector in those circumstances by recording that the Deputy Secretary could not have usurped the power of the Collector to transfer a Patwari and that the Patwari too should not have acted upon the direction of the Deputy Secretary instead of following the statute. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.