NAND KANWARJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by Dadiji Sahiba Smt. Nand Kanwarji of Thikana Garhi against an order of the Jagir Commissioner dated 10. 7. 59 regarding maintenance allowance of the appellant.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The validity of the decision of the learned Jagir Commissioner has been assailed before us on two grounds and we shall deal with each one of them separately. The first contention of the appellant is that the maintenance allowance admissible to her should have been allowed in bonds and not through annual payments. It has also been argued that the other two maintenance holders of the Thikana have been allowed bonds and that the denial of a similar treatment to her amounts to an undue exercise of discretion. It has been replied on behalf of the Thikana that no maintenance holder can, under the provision of the law, be allowed maintenance in form of bonds. WE have bestowed our careful consideration upon this aspect of the case. Sec. 27 (1) of the Act lays down that any person who, under any existing jagir law, is entitled to receive a maintenance allowance out of the income of any jagir, shall be entitled to receive, out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to the Jagirdar, such amount for maintenance annually as the Jagir Commissioner may fix after taking into consideration the various factors laid down in the section. This provision, therefore, unequivocally lays down that maintenance allowance shall be fixed annually. The reason is not far to seek. Compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to a Jagirdar or a co-sharer is in lieu of the resumed grant. The object of allowing maintenance is to ensure means of subsistence for the dependant. Payment through bonds, which are negotiable, may in some cases frustrate the very object of allowing maintenance, where the entire amount can be collected immediately though at some discount. Sec. 27 (7) provides a further corroboration to this line of reasoning. It is laid down therein that the Government may in the case of a widow maintenance holder allow maintenance allowance out of the Consolidated fund of the State during her life time even after the full compensation and rehabilitation grant have been paid to the Jagirdar. Sec. 35 (2) of the Act also provides that the amount of maintenance allowance determined under sec. 32 shall be deducted and paid from every instalment referred to in sub-sec. (1) and the remaining amount of the instalment shall be payable by the Government to the Jagirdar. Sec. 32 (c) may also be referred in this connection, which lays down that the amount of annual maintenance allowance shall be determined under the provision of this section. In other words none of these provisions referred to above lay down that the maintenance allowance shall be paid for the entire full 15 years in a lump sum or through bonds which can be encashed at once. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to sec. 34 (2) of the Act, which, however, is irrelevant. It simply lays down that the amount shall be payable in the same number of instalment as the compensation payable to the Jagirdar. WE may, however, refer to the Compensation and Rehabilitation Bond Rules. Rule 3 lays down that the compensation and rehabilitation grant including the additional rehabilitation grant finally determined as payable to a Jagirdar or a co-sharer under the Act, will be paid in cash or a negotiable bond, or partly in cash or partly in bond as the Jagir Commissioner may decide on the application of the Jagirdar concerned. A maintenance holder or the maintenance allowance payable to a maintenance holder is not included in this rule. The word 'jagirdar' has been defined in the Act as a person recognised as a Jagirdar under any existing Jagir law including a grantee of Jagir land from a Jagirdar. Obviously, a maintenance holder of a Jagirdar cannot be covered by this definition. Thus the clear position that emerges from an examination of these various provisions is that neither the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act contained any provision for payment of maintenance allowance to a maintenance holder in negotiable bonds. The only method laid down for this mode of payment is by annual instalments or even by half yearly instalments where the compensation is to be paid through half yearly instalments. Maintenance allowance would become due annually and cannot be paid all atonce. The objection of the appellant on the point is, therefore, invalid and stands rejected.