SARJOO PROSAD, C.J.—The petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 21st January, 1957.

2. The dispute relates to certain lands which, according to the case of the petitioners, formed part of a block of 40 bighas known as "Garh-ka-Pana" situated in village Chirana, District Jhunjhunu. The petitioners claim that they along with the respondents Nos. 6 to 12 are co-sharers of the land in question; but according to the petitioners they had interest only in five bighas which was on the extreme cast of the land in dispute and which formed a separate piece by itself. As regards the remaining 35 bighas, they claim to have obtained settlement from their co-sharers on payment of rent under successive pattas beginning from 1935. They further submit that on the 18th of August, 1951, the respondents 2 to 6 dispossessed them from the lands in question and as a result of the dispossession they were compelled to file an application under section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. IX of 1949 —hereinafter called the Ordinance) on 23rd August, 1951, before the Sub Divisional Officer of Udaipur, District Jhunjhunu, complaining of the forceful dispossession from their holding and claiming reinstatement over the same. The claim of the petitioners was resisded by the respondents 2 to 5, according to whom the disputed 35 bighas of land were never in the cultivation of the petitioners, nor did they form part of the Garh-ka-Pana; but that these lands actually appertained to another block of lands called Kothi Paraowali, which is adjacent to the other block of Garh-ka-pana. The alleged co-sharers respondents 6 to 12 were also made parties to the proceedings under section 7 of the Ordinance pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The proceedings were ultimately taken up for hearing by the Anti Ejectment Officer, Sikar, who dismissed the same by his order dated 12th March, 1954, and did not grant any relief to the petitioners. Against that order the petitioners applied for revision before the Revenue Board under section 10 of the Ordinance; but the Board also dismissed the revision application on 21st of January, 1957, and an application for review filed by the petitioners before the Board likewise failed. The petitioners now challenge the order of the Board as being manifestly erroneous and illegal.

3. The learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has raised several points before us. He contends that the question whether the petitioners were tenants within the meaning of the Ordinance was a question collateral to the proceeding under section 7 thereof and, therefore, any decision given by the Board of Revenue on that point is open to attack in this writ application. In that connection he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rai Brij Raj Krishna Vs. Messrs S. K. Shaw and Brothers (1), where Fazl Ali J. referred to the observations of Lord Esther, Mr. R. in The Queen Vs. Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income Tax (2). The Master of the Rolls categorised jurisdiction under two heads as follow:—

"When an inferior court or tribunal or body, which has to exercise the power of deciding facts, is first established by Act of Parliament, the Legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may in effect say that if a certain state of facts exist and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to such things, but not otherwise. There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exist and if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence, what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction. But there is another state of things which may exist. The Legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document