BANSILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari or prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the orders of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the Deputy Collector Jagir, Nagaur in regard to the sanctioning of maintenance allowances to the respondents No. 5 to 11.

(2.) THE petitioners' case is that there were money dealings between them and the respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 7 and in consideration of a sum of Rs. 22,140/-the respondents executed a mortgage deed on 30th October, 1953 in respect of 137 fields in village Lanasar for a period of 10 years in their favour. THEy remained in possession of the mortgage lands till the jagir was resulted on 1st August, 1955. THEreafter, they filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 24,473/14/6 against respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 7 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Merta. In that suit they made an application for attachment before judgment of compensation and rehabilitation1 bonds of the value of Rs. 19000/- payable to these respondents. An order for the attachment of the bonds was passed by the Senior Civil Judge but the Deputy Collector Jagir sent a reply that bonds for Rs. 2731. 63 Np. , Rs. 4. 800/- and Rs. 2400/-only are to be issued to respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 7 respectively. THE petitioners, thereupon, made enquiries from the office of the Deputy Collector Jagir and came to know that respondent No. 4 in order to defraud his creditors had made fictitious maintenance grants in favour of the members of his family i. e. , respondents Nos. 5-11. THEy, therefore, submitted an application before the Deputy Collector Jagir to hold an enquiry and cancel the said fictitious grants but their application was rejected on 4th October, 1958 on the ground that the award for compensation and maintenance grant had already been made and could not be res-viewed. THE petitioners then filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector Jagir before the Board of Revenue, but the same was also rejected. THE Board of Revenue held that before a final award is given a notice is given to an interested person to file objections before the court. THE petitioners having not availed of the opportunity cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter. THE contention of the petitioner is that as provided in sec. 32 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (hereinafter called the Act) it was incumbent on the Jagir Commissioner to give notice to them and they should also have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard as they were interested persons. It is urged that as the final order in the present case was made without notice to them, it cannot be held binding upon them and they were entitled to have it reopened on their application. Sec. 32 of the Act deals with the determination of compensation and provides for the provisional determination of amounts payable to the jagirdar, persons entitled to maintenance and to the co-sharers in the first instance. Sub-clause (2) provides for the making of final order after affording an opportunity of hearing, to the Government, the jagirdar and every other interested person. This provision does not seem to envisage a notice to the creditors of the jagirdar at any stage of the enquiry. THE notice under this section is intended to be given to those who under the existing jagir law, are entitled to receive some money from the compensation payable to the jagirdar, as for instance the persons entitled to maintenance allowances and the jagirdars' co-sharers. At the time of the determination of compensation the extent of the indebtedness of the jagirdar has not to be kept in consideration and it does not affect the fixation of the amount of compensation. Sec. 30 of the Act says that the amount due from the jagirdar under clause (e) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 22 shall be recoverable out of the compensation payable to him under sec. 26. THE dues mentioned in sec. 22 Sub-sec. (1) (e) refer to all arrears of revenue;, cesses or other dues in respect of any jagir land due from the jagirdar for any period prior to the date of resumption, including any sum due from him under clause (d) and all loans advanced by the Government or the Court of Wards to the jagirdar shall continue to be recoverable from such jagirdar. " THEre is no other provision in the Act which might indicate that the creditors are to be heard by the Jagir Commissioner at the time of the determination of the compensation. THE Board of Revenue in our opinion was not correct in saying that the petitioners should have filed their objections at the time when notice was given to all interested persons to file objections before the court. Neither they were entitled to any such notice nor could they be heard in the matter of fixation of the amount of compensation. THE maintenance allowances, are to be paid out of the compensation and that is a matter in which the jagirdar or the persons entitled to maintenance allowance are concerned. THE validity of the grants for maintenance cannot be challenged by the creditors of the jagirdar in these proceedings. THE remedy of the creditors to challenge such transfers lies under the general law and not under sec. 32 (2) of the Act.