Rajasthan High Court, Full Bench
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J., Dave & Ranawat, JJ.
Partumal - Appellant
Versus
Managing Officer Jaipur - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Case No. 117/1961
Decided On : October 09, 1961
The Managing Officer and the Regional Settlement Commissioner are both statutory bodies and they have to function according to law. They cannot justify their actions under cover of certain orders of the revisional authority if such orders are not legal. In other words, these authorities cannot act contrary to law and if they so act, they are themselves answerable for their illegal action, and they cannot justify such action under cover of an illegal order of an appellate or revisional authority, not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. In order to examine the legality of the action of the Managing Officer and the Regional Settlement Commissioner who are amendable to the jurisdiction of this Court, it may become necessary for this Court to consider the vires of the order of the appellate or revisional authority even though such authority is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, being located outside the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. (Para 15)
2. This petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, one member of which felt that the two Bench decisions of this Court in Doongar Das and another Vs. Custodian, Rajasthan and another(1) and Govind Ram Vs. Regional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur(2) require to be reconsidered in the light of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Lt. Colonel Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India and another(3) and the following point was, therefore, referred by that bench to a Full Bench: —
"Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases where orders sought to be set aside had been passed by certain authorities outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court."
3. Honble the Chief Justice felt that the other point that was involved in this case was also of equal importance and he, therefore directed that the whole case be referred.
4. The petitioner Partumal and his son Lakhmichand are displaced persons from West Pakistan. They occupied the first and third floors of property No.A.M.C. XIX/1186 (Old)-A.M.C. No.XIX/501 (New) situated at Ajmer since 1st January, 1948 under occupation report No. 7721 of the 12th of August 1948 in the name of the petitioner No. 1. The said property belonged to one Anwarul Haq who migrated to Pakistan. This portion of the property was allotted by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Ajmer, by his order No. 1815/2415 dated 2nd April 1949 in the name of the petitioner No. 1. The other portions of the property were allotted to the persons respectively in occupation thereof. On the 9th of October 1958 the petitioner No. 2 applied to the Managing Officer, Ajmer, for allotment of the entire residential portion of the said property and on the 4th of December 1958 all the occupants of the said property gave consent for allotment of the respective portions of the property in their occupation to them and the Managing Officer, Ajmer, in pursuance thereof agreed to sell the portion of the property which was in the tenancy of the petitioners to petitioner No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 4600/- by his letter dated the 3rd March 1959. The petitioner No. 2 deposited Rs. 920/- in cash on the 2nd of March 1959 as part payment of the consideration money. He offered verified claims of his associates for an amount of Rs. 3680/- being the balance of the consideration money and the said claims were adjusted towards the price of the property on the 16th of August 1959 and in this way the entire amount of the consideration money was paid off. On the 24th of December 1959 the Managing Officer acting on behalf of the President of India granted a deed of conveyance in the name of the petitioner No. 2 for the entire first and the third floor of the property that was already in his occupation. On the 12th of December 1959 Hemandas, to whom the second floor of the property was transferred, preferred an appeal to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur, claiming transfer of the third floor of the property in his name. During the pendency of the said appeal, the matter was referred by the Regional Commissioner, Jaipur to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Delhi in his administrative capacity and the Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, in exercise of the powers delegated to him by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, set aside the transfer of the said property to th
(3) Lt. Colonal Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India (AIR 1961 SC 532)
(7) Musaliar Vs. Venkatachalam (AIR 1956 SC 246)
(8) Election Commission India Vs. Saka Venkata Suba Rao (AIR 1953 SC 210)
(9) K. S. Rashid and Son Vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission (AIR 1954 SC 207)
(1) Doongardas Vs. Custodian Rajasthan (1956 RLW
(2) Govind Ram Vs. Regional Settlement Commissioner (1960 RLW
(6) Barkat Ali Vs. Custodion General (1955 RLW, 95 = ILR 1954
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.