STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SANDHYA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State under sec. 39. of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act 1952 against an item of income allowed from non-agricultural uses of land and grazing on the basis of the average yield for three years preceding the basic year on the ground that Jagir itself had been created on 23. 1. 53 by way of sub-grant by the Jagirdar Thadi Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk and the same was resumed on 1. 7. 54 there having lapsed an interval only of about one year and six months roughly between the dates of the creation of Jagir and the resumptions thereof. The argument is that average yield, if any, only for this period of one year and a half, should have been taken into consideration while allowing an income under this item and not any income arising to the parent Jagirdar, but not the Jagirdar claiming the compensation, in any period preceding the creation of the Jagir itself. THIS has been contested on behalf of the respondent on the ground that under principles 2 (c) and (e) of the Second Schedule dealing with the principles of determination of compensation payable to the Jagirdar, the income to be included in the total income of a Jagir land to make up the gross income of the Jagir for the basic year is to be calculated, so far as other non-agricultural uses of land and grazing were concerned, on the basis of "average yield for three years preceding the basic year". The contention is that if the intention of the legislature had been to allow the income accruing to the Jagirdar (whose Jagir has been resumed) claiming the compensation alone and no more, it would have in its wisdom employed word "accrue" or " accrual" and not "yield" in the sub-principles 2 (c) and (e) also. As instead the expression used has been "average yield", it should be taken to be a "yield" from the land irrespective of the fact to whom it has 'accrued the parent Jagirdar or the sub-Jagirdar claiming the compensation. The point for determination, therefore, in this case is whether there is any difference between the expression. "accrue" employed in sub-principle (a) and "yield" employed in the sub-principles (c) and (e) it being an admitted case between the parties that no income has "accrued" on account of their non-agricultural uses of land or grazing to the sub-Jagirdar during the period falling between the coming into existence of his Jagir and the date of resumption. No particular rulings or authorities have been cited on behalf of the parties in the matter. The dictionary meaning of the word "accrue" is "to come in a natural way or as a result". The dictionary meaning of word' "yield" is "produced as a result". The meaning given in Wharton's Law Lexicon to the expression "accrue" is "to grow or to arise" and to the expression "yield" is that it is used as "first word of the 'reddindum' clause in a lease". The word "reddindum" has been shown to denote a "clause reserving rent in a lease whereby a lessor reserves some new thing to himself out of that which he granted before. It commonly and properly succeeds the "habendum' and is usually made by the words 'yielding and paying', or similar expressions importing a covenant if executed by the lessee". It would seem, therefore, that both the expressions "accrue" and "yield" go to denote in the ultimate sense one and the same thing growing or coming natural or arising out of certain thing as an income accruing from a land in a natural course. For the purpose of finding the gross income of the Jagirdar for the basic year, the total income from his "jagir lands" under the various heads given in principle 2, referred to above, has to be added. The income to be included as such has to be an income as has been specifically stated in the wordings of the main principle 2, an income "from his Jagir Lands". The expression "jagir Land" has been defined by section 2 (h) of the Act to mean "any land in which or in relation to which a Jagirdar has rights in respect of land revenue or any other kind of revenue etc. " Unless, therefore, the income is from the "jagir Land" i. e. from the land in relation to which he has rights in respects of land revenue or any other kind of revenue, a Jagirdar cannot be held entitled to claim compensation from any income therefrom. In other words, the income should be an income arising to the Jagirdar as Jagirdar to enable him having it counted towards his gross income. In case of the present respondent the land for grazing in, and non-agricultural uses of, which the income is being claimed by her, it would be a 'jagir land' only from the date on which the sub-grant has been created in her favour by the principal Jagirdar and not before. Any income arising we may call it to have "accrued" or to have been "yielded" whatsoever name, from such a land before the same having been recognised as her "jagir Land" cannot therefore be called to have arisen to her as Jagirdar from her "jagir Land" and be allowed to be calculated in law as any yield or income in her favour to work out an average for the purpose of calculating her "gross income". Sec. 31 of the Act also-leads to the same conclusion. A statement of claim is to be filed thereunder only by a 'jagirdar' whose "jagir land" has been resumed. The claim of compensation can be made only in respect of a "jagir land" giving all the particulars required by Sub-sec. 2 thereof; and under sec. 32, a compensation can be determined by the Jagir Commissioner, on the basis of such a statement of claim, in case one has been filed, and on the basis of such enquiry as he deems necessary in case a claim has not been filed, only on the basis of sec. 26 of the Act, which renders the Government liable to pay to the Jagirdar whose "jagir lands" are resumed under sec. 21 only such compensation as shall be determined in accordance with the Principles laid down in the Second Schedule. No other amount, whether it has accrued to him as an income or on the basis of the average yield, can be allowed to be included in the total income from his Jagir Land to make up the "gross income" for the basic year. In short, compensation can be determined only in accordance with the "gross income" of a Jagirdar arrived at as laid down by Principle 2 of the Second Schedule, and an income not thus arising to him cannot be treated to be an "average yield" for the three years preceding the basic year for the purpose. In the case under appeal, as stated above, no income has accrued to the respondent Smt. Sandhya Kumari as Jagirdar after the creation of the Jagir in her favour; and therefore no "average yield" could be counted to add to the total income of her Jagir for calculating the "gross income" of her Jagir for the basic year. The learned Deputy Collector Jagir has, therefore, committed an error in allowing this income and the same deserves to be deducted while assessing her compensation.

(2.) WE, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Deputy Collector Jagir, and order that the compensation should be re-determined after deducting the above two incomes from the "gross income" of the respondent, and the final award shall stand modified accordingly. .