DEVILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 preferred by the Jagirdar Shri Devi Lal against the decision and final award of the Deputy Collector Jagir Udaipur dated 24. 9. 59. Shri Chordia appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that a sum of Rs. 56. 24 np. verified in his favour and awarded to him provisionally under the head "sale of Land" has been disallowed while giving the final award without any objection having been raised in that behalf by the Government Advocate appearing in the learned lower court, and that also sec. 26 (A) of the Act has been made wrongly applicable to his case. We have carefully examined the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector Jagir and found that he has dis-allowed this amount not only as having been hit by sec. 26 (A) of the Act but also because he has found it to be a premium for the agricultural land and not an in on:e accruing on account of sale of land. In view of this, there does not remain any necessity, it having been decided by the Full Bench of the Board in case Maharaj Hamir Singh Versus State, that an income arising from the grant of pattas shall not be regarded as an income from the sale of culturable land, to find other arguments for rejecting this appeal. But as the learned counsel for the appellant has raised two important law points namely (1) whether an award given provisionally can be amended while determining it finally or not in case when no object on has been raised against it by any party and (2) sec. 26 (A) has been rightly applied to this case or not, we deem it fit to examine them also. So far as the method of application of sec. 26 (A) of the Act to this case go:s the learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the compliance of the rules in this behalf has not been made inasmuch as the enquiry has not been conducted, as contemplated by Rule 45 of the Rules made under the Act, in the manner provided by law for the trial of a suit in the Revenue Court. Suffice it to say in this connection that such an enquiry is contemplated as per Rul 45 (a) only in contested cases. Where a case is not contested as per sub-rule (b) thereof the enquiry is to be made only in the manner provided for the trial of an application by a Revenue Court. Besides, Rule 45 is also to be followed only when there has not been made any specific provision otherwise. For any enquiry for enquiring into the cases to be dealt with under sec. 26 (A) of the Act, the rule prescribed is Rule 34, which lays down that the Jagir Commissioner shall first make an enquiry either by himself or through any officer nominated by him, whether the sale (of any Jagir land agricultural, unoccupied or Abadi) has been made by Jagirdar on a reasonable scale or not. • Such an enquiry therefore, is to be made by the Jagir Commissioner in every case where any transfer is found to have been made on or after the first date of January 1949, the crucial date fixed in sec. 26 (A ). Admittedly the income claimed by the Jagirdar-appellant in this case has accrued on or after this date. THIS sec. 26 (A) further requires the Jagir Commissioner not to recognise any such transfer for the purpose of compensat;on or rehabilitation grant payable to the Jagirdar if he is satisfied that such transfer has been made not in the normal course of management but in anticipation of Jagir. The learned Deputy Collector Jagir, therefore was not only duty bound but also within his competence to raise this point himself and make an enquiry to satisfy himself whether the alleged transfer had been made as provided above or not. There was no bar to his enquiring into this point without there having been raised any object on against the amount claimed by the Government or any other party. The examination of sec. 32 (2) of the Act also leads to the same conclusion. Vide sub-sec. (1) of this section, the amounts given therein are determined only provisionally to be conveyed by serving a copy of his order to the Government, the Jagirdar and any other interested party. The amounts are to be determined finally later on only subject to the restrictions that every interested person therein has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. THIS sub-section also does not in any away operate to bar any enquiry by the Officer acting as Jagir Commissioner for the purpose into any matter not raised by any party also. Only limitation to his powers is that he would, before passing the final order, give all the interested persons a reasonable opportunity of being heared in that behalf. The learned Deputy Collector Jagir has, therefore, rightly dis-allowed the disputed claim of the appellant and there being no force in this appeal we hereby reject it confirming the decision given by him. .