STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAO RAJA SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal by certificate against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated March 13, 1968, by which its writ petition for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, dated January 13, 1964, in case No. 1/1962/Tonk "to enable the petitioner" to recover Rs. 5,94,215,30, "according to law" was dismissed.

(2.) It was stated in the writ petition that the lands of the Uniara jagir, in Aligarh tehsil to Tonk district, vested in the Rajasthan State on their resumption under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Jagir Commissioner therefore took up the question of determining the compensation which was payable to Rao Raja Sardar Singh who was then the jagirdar of Uniara. In that connection a certificate was filed before the Jagir Commissioner in form 10 under R. 37-C of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules, 1954, certifying that a sum of Rs. 5,49,234/12/3 should be recovered from the jagirdar"s compensation and rehabilitation grant on account of "revenue dues". The jagirdar raised several objections before the Jagir Commissioner, but it was urged on behalf of the State that the sum of Rupees 5,49,234/12/3 was the unpaid amount of the liability of Rs. 5,54,226/13/6, which was payable under a resolution of the Jaipur State Council dated July 1, 1936. After adding the sum of Rs. 44,980.53 on account of arrears of tribute, the total realisable amount was stated to be Rs. 5,94,215.30. As the State was not able to give a proper account of the dues, the jagir Commissioner made an order dated February 14, 1961, that the amount mentioned in the aforesaid certificate (in Form 10) could not be deducted. An appeal was filed against that order of the Jagir Commissioner, to the Board of Revenue, but it was dismissed on Oct. 15, 1963. The State contended that it was challenging the decisions of the Jagir Commissioner and the Board of Revenue "in separate proceedings", but that was not done and it is not in dispute before us that the Jagir Commissioner"s order dated Feb. 14, 1961, which was upheld by the Board"s decision dated Oct. 15, 1963, became final.

(3.) In the meantime, the Tehsildar of Aligarh issued a demand notice on Nov. 3, 1961, which was revised on Dec. 22, 1961, for the recovery of Rs. 5,94,215.30 under S. 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The jagirdar raised an objection that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to issue the demand notice because of the Jagir Commissioner"s earlier order dated Feb 14, 1961 (which had become final and binding on the parties after the Board"s judgment dated Oct. 15, 1963), but the Tahsildar rejected it by his order dated Dec. 22, 1961. As the jagirdar did not pay the amount which was claimed under the demand notice, proceedings were started for attachment and sale of his property, and the jagirdar made an application to the Board of Revenue for a revision of the Tehsildar"s order. It was allowed by the order of the Board dated Jan. 13, 1964. The Board took the view that although the certificate for recovery had been sent to the Jagir Commissioner in Form 10, the required particulars were not furnished in spite of several opportunities, and that as the State Government"s claim for the recovery of the money had been completely rejected on an earlier occasion by the Jagir Commissioner"s order dated Feb. 14, 1961, and the Jagir Commissioner had refused to deduct that amount from the compensation with reference to the provisions of Ss. 22 (1) (e), 32 (1) (b) and 34 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court in respect of the same dues was barred by S. 46 of the Act and the proceedings which had been taken under S. 257-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were without jurisdiction. As the Board quashed the order of the Tehsildar dated Dec. 22, 1961, the State Government filed the writ petition, which has given rise to this appeal, in the High Court, for the recovery of the "revenue dues" mentioned in the certificate in Form 10, and feels aggrieved because of its dismissal by the impugned judgment dated March 13, 1968.