Bapna, J.—This is a petition for issue of a writ of certiorari in respect of a case decided by the Board of Revenue.

2. One Nuruddin filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage of certain agricultural land against Nathmal, in the Court of Nazim, Nimbahera. The Nazim decreed the suit for redemption subject to payment of Rs. 701/- by the plaintiff. Nathmal filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Udaipur who transferred it to the Additional Commissioner, and the latter allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Nuruddin had died in the meantime and Khwaja Husaain and others, legal representatives of said Nuruddin, filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. It was set for hearing before Shri Lal Sinha Saktawat, Member, Board of Revenue, who after hearing the parties did not agree with the Additional Commissioner and passed judgment on 22nd of September 1950 upholding the decision of the Nazim of Nimbahera. The operative portion of his judgment is—

"For these reasons as given above, I would, subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur dated 3.5.50 and uphold the order of the Nazim, Nimbahera dated 5.2.48, decreeing the suit for redemption of the appellants."

The file of the case was passed on to Shri A.A. Kherie, the other member of the Board of Revenue, who agreed with Shri Lal Sinha and the operative portion of his order is as under:

"For reasons given by my learned brother, I agree with him that there was no justification for the Additional Commissioner for disbelieving the entries in the Government record. In my opinion the Nazims decision is correct.

For reasons given above, I concur in the order that my learned brother proposes to make."

This order was recorded by Mr. Kherie on the 29th of September, 1950.

3. In the present petition by Nathmal, it is contended that Shri Lal Sinha, a member of the Board of Revenue, heard the case at Udaipur on 22nd September 1950, on which date he passed the order mentioned as aforesaid. The acceptance of the appeal subject to the concurrence of his learned colleague, who did not hear the case, and was not sitting on the Bench with Shri Lal Sinha, was illegal. The passing of judgment by Shri A. A. J Kherie at Jaipur on 29th September 1950 without notice to the defendant petitioner, or hearing him, has again been challenged as being illegal. It is argued that the alleged judgment of the Board of Revenue is no judgment at all and the case be sent for by the High Court for decision by that court, or the Government of Rajasthan be directed to appoint a Tribunal consisting of members other than those who purported to decide the case as members of the Board, for decision in this case.

4. The Board of Revenue opposed this petition and contended that the procedure adopted by the two members of the Board was in accordance with provisions of the Board of Revenue Ordinance (No. XXII of 1949) and the Rules made by the Government on 2nd November 1950 under sec. 13, sub-section (2) of that Ordinance. Reference was also made to the distribution of work male by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, on Nov., 4, 1949 between different members of the Board. ,

5. The respondents Khwaja Hussain and others supported the Board of Revenue.

6. On a careful consideration of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules made there-under, it is clear that the Board of Revenue in this case had acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it.

7. Sec. 13 of the Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949, is: as follows :—

Sec. I3 :—Except as otherwise provided by or under this Ordinance or by any other law or enactment for the time being in force in the whole or any part of Rajasthan and subject to any rules made in that behalf or the general or special orders of the Government, the jurisdiction of the Board may be exercised.

(a) by the Chairman or any other member of the Board, sitting singly, or

(b) by a Ben of the Board, consisting of two or more memb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document