DILAWAR KANWAR Vs. COLLECTOR AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed by Umedsingh ex-istimrardar of Baori estate, against the order of the Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer passed in compensation proceedings under the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act (No. 111) of 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). Umed Singh having died during the pendency of the appeal, Mst. Dilawar Kanwar and another have been brought on record as his legal representatives and this appeal is being continued by them.

(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly as follows : - THE Government of the former State of Ajmer vide S. R. O. No. 1648 published in the Gazette of India, Extra-ordinary Part II sec. 3 dated 28th July, 1955 declared that from the 1st day of August, 1955 all istimrari estates situated in the State of Ajmer and held by istimrardars, shall vest in the State Government. Under this notification, the Baori estate of the appellant vested in the State. Under sec. 12 of the Act, the intermediary was required to file a statement of claim within two months from the date of vesting. THE compensation payable to an intermediary is to be calculated in accordance with sec. 12 and 13 of the Act and r. 21 and 22 of the Rules framed under sec. 84 of the Act. It appears that as the intermediary Umedsingh along with other intermediaries had moved writ applications in the Supreme Court of India, there was the initial reluctance on their part to cooperate with the compensation authorities in the matter of determination of compensation. No claim was consequently filed before the Compensation Officer by Umed Singh within the prescribed period. Even when the Compensation Officer purporting to act under r. 21 of the Rules wanted to hear him before determining compensation, he submitted an application dated 12th January, 1956 stating that as he had moved a writ application in the Supreme Court, he would not be bound to accept any compensation that may be determined in his case. THE Compensation Officer, in these circumstances, had no alternative but to submit his report to the Compensation Commissioner for further proceedings under sec. 13 of the Act. After the report was submitted, wiser counsel seemed to have prevailed upon Umed Singh and on 4th of May, 1956, he submitted a statement of claim in the prescribed form with necessary information and some documentary evidence. At that stage, he sought an opportunity to bring on record all necessary materials which may have some bearing in the proper determination of compensation. THE Compensation Commissioner, however, did not think it proper to permit the appellant to introduce any evidence at that stage for the purpose of determining compensation. He, therefore, rejected his application and determined the compensation on the report submitted by the Compensation Officer vide his order under appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Compensation Commissioner, the appellant has filed this appeal.