DAVE, C.J.—This is a writ application under Art, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 5th December, 1958, 28th June, 1963, 6th March, 1964 and 2nd December, 1964. In order to appreciate the question which arises for our determination, it would be proper to state briefly the facts giving rise to this petition.

2. Thakur Balsingh son of Thakur Bijay Singhji was a jagirdar of thikana Ladhu which was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Acs,, 1952 (Act No. VI, of 1952), which will hereinafter be referred as the Act. After the resumption of the jagir, Thakur Balsingh filed a claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant under the Act. The final award on that claim was given by the Jagir Commissioner on 23.2.57. Thereafter Th. Balsingh died on 5.3.57. Against the said final award and an order dated 13.3.57, the State preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. In that appeal the legal representatives of the deceased (including six petitioners before this Court) were impleaded as respondents. The said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue on 27.11.57. Shri Kanwar Bahadur and Shri Jainath Kunzru were members of the Bench which dismissed the appeal. A review application was then filed against the said judgment. It was put up before another Division Bench consisting of Shri Kanwar Bahadur and Shri Ramniwas Hawa on 5.12.58 and they admitted it. After a notice was issued to the opposite party, the review application was listed before another Bench consisting of the then Chairman of the Board of Revenue Shri M.U. Menon and another learned member Shri Gajendrasingh. There was difference of opinion between the members of this bench on the question whether the review application could be admitted by the Bench consisting of Shri Kanwar Bahadur and Shri R. N. Hawa on 5.12.58 as Shri R. N. Hawa was not a member of the Bench which had dismissed the appeal and when Shri Kanwar Bahadur continued to be the member of the Board. The case was then referred to a third learned member Shri S.D. Ujwal. He was of the opinion that the admission of the review application was a ministerial act and not a judicial order and that it was no more than registration of the review application. It was observed by him that Shri Menon and Shri Gajendrasingh had heard the review application on merits, that they had even written out their separate judgments and, therefore, he returned the reference to the said members with a request that the judgments written out by them should be delivered. He passed this order on 6-3 64. It appears that after this order, Shri Menon and Shri Ujwal did not deliver the judgments as Shri Menon retired from service. The case was then put up before another Bench consisting of Shri Gajendrasingh and Shri R.N. Madhok. It was observed by them that in accordance with the opinion of Shri Ujwal the review petition may be taken to be admitted in accordance with law and that it should be listed for hearing on merits on 23.2.65.

3. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the learned members of the Board of Revenue who passed orders regarding the review application on 5.12.58, 28.6.63, 6.3.64 and 2.12.64 did not correctly appreciate the procedure laid down in O. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that all the said orders should, therefore, be quashed and that the Board should be directed to proceed and decide the matter according to law.

4. Before dealing with the impugned orders, it may be observed that the right of presenting an application for review is a creature of Statute and where the law lays down forum for presentation of such an application and the grounds on which the application can be based, those conditions must be fulfilled. Sec. 40-A of the Act provides that the Board, the Jagir Commissioner or the Commissioner for Khudkasht Lands may either on an application made within

Click Here to Read the rest of this document