Per Shri K.S. Ujwal—A Division Bench of this Board, which heard the appeal by Surajmal against the Revenue Appellate Authoritys order of 11th March, 66, has referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench of the Board :—

"Does the power of the village Panchayat to decide mutations in consequence of Government Notification No. F. (185) Rev. B/157 dated 11-9-57 extend to cases arising out of the operation of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act?"

The Honble Members constituting the Division Bench felt that the decision of the appeal depended upon the decision of the question whether the power of deciding mutation cases resulting from the acquisition of Khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act vest in village Panchayats as a result of Notification of 27th October, 1956 and 11th September, 1957 issued under clause (b) of sec. 260(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and quoted in the decision of (his Board in the case of Balu vs. Ramdeo reported as 1969 R.R.D. page 66 or not ?

In the arguments before the Division Bench, the question was raised that the decision of the Board in the case of Balu vs. Ramdeo was an authority for the view that the jurisdiction to decide mutation case, falling under sec.135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, vested in village Panchayats were the lands forming the subject matter of mutation proceedings were located within the territorial limits such of Gram Panchayats. The learned Members constituting the D. B. which has made this reference took note of the fact that mutations are not occasioned merely by transfer and succession, but also, for instance, as a consequence of acquisition of khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and observed that since mutations covered by sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act involved an enquiry of a varied nature relating to acquisition of khatedari rights, it could hardly be intended that this enquiry should be held and the matter be decided by Gram Panchayats. The D.B. has in the order of reference also observed that mutation in such cases follows an enquiry which will have to be made by the Assistant Collector and since this aspect of the matter was not considered by the L.B. which decided the case of Balu vs. Ramdeo, the matter needed reference to a Larger Bench of the Board.

Initiating the discussions, Shri R. G. Sogani supported the proposition, that the Gram Panchayats cannot decide matters failing under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and record acquisition of khatedari rights conferred by this section, by contending that the report, contemplated by sec. 133 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, and the procedure to be followed, on receipt of such report, laid down in sec. 135(1) and (2) of the Act do not include, in their purview, the acquisition of khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by the person in possession, because :

Firstly, sec. 133 comes into play only when the need for mutation arises as a result of the obtaining of possession by succession, transfer or otherwise and where the claimant has not obtained possession, sec. 133 would not apply. Elaborating this argument, he said that person claiming to have acquired khatedari rights by virtue of sec. 19, does not obtain possession by succession, transfer or otherwise of any property or other right or interest in any land or profits thereof within the meaning of sec. 133.

Secondly, it was contended that though the word "otherwise" used after the words "succession and transfer" in sec. 133 enlarges the scope of the section to cover obtaining of possession by modes other than succession or transfer, the increase in scope will be only to the extent of obtaining of possession by modes similar to succession and transfer because the principle of interpretation of statues, incorporated in the doctrine of ejusdem generis, permits the construction of the word " or otherwise" to mean only a mode, at least, analogous to those specified immedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document