Back
1957 Supreme(Raj) 83
Rajasthan High Court
Wanchoo C.J. & Modi, J.
Rawat - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
Civil Writ Case No. 69 of 1956
Decided On : April 30, 1957
Jai Gopal Chhangani, for petitioners; Ratan Lal, for opposite party
Headnote:(a) Revuue Laws—Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating (Second Amendment) Act, secs. 4-A and 4-B Scope and applicability—Tehsildars powers—Party raising dispute as to share.(b) Revenue Laws—Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating (Second Amendment Act, secs 4-A and 4-B—Each case a separate case and must be dealt with separately.(c) Revenue Laws—Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating (Second Amendment) Act, secs 4 A and 4-B—Difference in procedure where Tehsildar himself acts or deputes officer to act—No discrimination, as distinction based on reasonable classification.(d) Board of Revenue Ordinance, sec. 12—Board competent to Intervene In cases decided by Tehsildar under secs 4-A and 4-B of Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act, whether Tehsildar acting la judicial or executive capacity.
HELD : Clause (a) and (b) of sub-sec.(1) of secs. 4-A and 4-B, do not, contemplate that the Tehsildar would decide the share of the produce payable as rent under sec. 4-A Both these clauses assume that there is no dispute as to the share which the landlord is get from the tenant, and the dispute is only about the neglect of one party or the other to be present for purposes of appraisement, or about the actual division or the quantity or value of the produce. As soon as there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant about the share which the landlord should receive as rent, a question of determination of rent arises, and that can only be decided by an Assistant Collector under item 15 of Group B of the First Schedule of the Rajasthan Act No. I of 1951, and now under item 6 of Part I of the Third Schedule of she Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. III) of 1955.
This position has been made clear under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 under secs. 148 and 149 which deal with a similar state of affairs. Sub-sec. (8) of sec. 149 makes it clear that in case any party objects that the rent is not based on an estimate or appraisement of the crop, or a division of the produce-or that no amount is to be paid, or that the proportion of produce claimed by the landholder as rent is higher than is really due, the Tehsildar shall not decide such objection, but shall direct the parties to get their rights decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Where a dispute was raised by the tenants as to the share due to the jagirdar, the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass a decree after appraisement. Of course the Tehsildar certainly can make the appraisement after having seen the crop, but he cannot pass a decree. The appraisement, which the Tehsildar makes, can be used as evidence in a suit for determination of rent, and arrears of rent following thereon.
Even where there is no dispute as to the share due to the landholder, it is the Tehsildar who has to determine the amount to be paid on appraisement. He cannot pass a decree of the type namely that the landholder would get the price of his share of the grain according to the prevailing market price. The Tehsildars decree is to be specific, and he has to state the actual sum of money due to the landholder.
Sec. 4-B contemplates that the Tehsildar or the officer, deputed by him, would go to the spot, and inspect the produce or the standing crop, and either divide the produce or make an appraisement or estimate of the standing crop. It is no part of the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar to decide whether any part of the crop had been removed, and to take that into account in making the division or making his appraisement. What secs. 4-A and 4-B contemplate is that the Tehsildar should deal with the produce actually found by him, and divide it according to the shares of the landholder and the tenant or make an appraisement of the Handing crop which he finds on the spot. (Paras 12 and 13)
2. The case of the applicants was briefly this—
The applicants are residents of village Bhaniyana in Tehsil Pokran, and are tenants of Shri Vikramsingh and other Jagirdars of Pokran. They say that they are liable to pay one-eighth share of the produce of Bajra, Moong, Mouth, Til and Juar as rent to the jagirdar, but that no share of the produce of Guar is payable by them. The share is determined by estimate or appraisement of the standing crop, which is known as Kunta in local parlance. They further say that they were prepared in the year 1953 to have the estimate or appraise-meat made according to the above share ; but the jagirdars demanded a greater share, i.e. 2/13ths in respect of Bajra, and one-sixth in respect of Moong, Mouth, Til, Juar and also Guar. Because of this dispute between the jagirdars and the applicants, the jagirdars of Pokran made an application to the Tehsildar on the 22nd December, 1933, under secs. 4-A and 4-B of the Act. In this application, the jagirdar said that he was entitled to 2/13ths share of Bajra and one-sixth share of other grain, bat the 139 tenants against whom this application was made were not willing to have the appraisement made, and were dishonestly removing the crop. Consequently, it was prayed that the Tehsildar should come and make the appraisement.
3. The Tehsildar thereupon Issued notices to the tenants fixing 24th December, 1953, as the date for making the appraisement on the spot. Only a few tenants were served for the 24th of December, and therefore the Tehsildar issued further notices on the 24th of December for service on the remainder. Eventually the Tehsildar made the appraisement in connection with the crop of the 139 tenants between the 25th and the 28tn of December, 1953. During these proceedings, a number of tenants made an application to the Tehsildar on the 28th of December, 1953, in which they said that the jagirdars share of the crop was only one-eighth, except in the case of Guar where the jagirdar was entitled to no share at all. It was also said that the tenants were prepared to agree to an appraisement according to this share and not otherwise. The Tehsildar ordered the tenants, who had made this application, to produce evidence in support of their case on the 2nd of January, 1954. The applicants case is that that they were not informed that they were to produce evidence in support of their application on the 2nd of January, 1954. Consequently, they did not appear at Phalodi Tehsil on the 2nd of January Thereupon, the Tehsildar passed an order recording that the tenants were absent, and called upon the jagirdar to substantiate his claim as to the share he was entitled to get.
4. On the 4th of January ex parte evidence was taken, and the Tehsildar held in favour of the share claimed by the jagirdar, and passed an order to the effect that the jagirdar was entitled to the price of the grain according to the present rate in accordance with the appraisement nude by him between the 25th of December and 28th of December, 1953, It may be mentioned that no decrees were apparently prepared and signed by the Tehsildar in pursuance of this order fixing the actual sum due from each of the 139 tenants.
5. The applicants filed an appeal against the order of the 4th of January, 1954, before the Collector of Jaisalmer. That was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay. The applicants then went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner. That appeal was also dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay. The applicants then filed a revision "before the Board of Revenue. The Board held that it had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision, on
