Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. The learned Advocate General contended that this application could not be said to be an application which falls within the requirements of the provisions of the Tenancy Act for negative declaration to be obtained under Section 70(b). He complained that no parties are mentioned in the application as the opponents. We have pointed out that they have given the names of the tenants who were intended to be affected by this application. It was then submitted that by this application the complaint made was as regards the entry having been wrongly made. Therefore, that would clearly fall within the purview of an application for correcting a wrong entry in the record of rights. We do not find any substance in this submission also because, regarding the application as a whole and particularly the paragraph to which we have already referred to, it definitely contains a plea that their right should be decided according to the provisions of law and particularly Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code. They merely referred to the entry in the record of rights, as a matter of history, and as the basis of their complaint that the tenants have been wrongly shown as permanent tenants and thus their right had been affected. Such an averment had to be made in order to show as to what the cause of action was. Then it was tried to be made out that it bears no verification. The procedure under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act has been made applicable and, therefore, it must be verified. In this also we find no merit. If we turn to the procedure of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, particularly Sections 8, 9 and 10 and the others, clearly show that an obligation actually is cast under those provisions on the Mamlatdar not to throw away even a plaint meant to be under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, if it does not comply with all the formalities of the plaint as required under that Act, but to himself look into it and give an opportunity to the party coming for relief to put it in order and this is so even as regards the want of verification or incorrect verification. Now, it is true that the provisions of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act as regards the plaint or contents of the plaint would not directly apply because the Tenancy Act itself provides for an application to be filed and what that application shall contain But, at the same time, the rest of the provisions which constitute the procedure for the Mamlatdars' Courts definitely apply and, therefore, even if this application is found to be wanting in some of the formalities or its contents as required by even the Tenancy Act, it would be the duty of the officer concerned to discharge his obligation as required by law under the provisions of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. We, therefore, find no merit in either of the contentions raised by the learned Advocate General against this application to make an effort to persuade us to hold that this application cannot be an application under the Tenancy Act but can only be treated as an application under the Code for altering a mutation entry or an entry In the record of rights. We are convinced, having ourselves looked into the contents of this application, that it was an application which was maintainable under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act.