BHERU SINGHJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Jagir, Jaipur dated 1. 4. 60.

(2.) THE case relates to the personal property of the appellant. THE only item being pressed in this appeal is relating to the property named 'rhagagarh-ka Jungal. ' This property has been disallowed to be included in the personal property of the jagirdar appellant on the ground that neither it was a' jungle' nor had it been entered into the khata of the jagirdar. THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that his claim to this property was not in its capacity as a "jungal" but in its capacity as a "bir" or "grove. " THE argument is that it contained a number of trees which had been continuing in the possession of the Jagirdar himself and that, therefore, vide sec. 23 (1) (iv) of the Act. He based this argument on the contention that the meaning of the word "grove" in the dictionary compiled by Nalanda is also "chhota Jungle. " THE words used in the Acts are not generally interpreted in accordance with their dictionary meaning, when the term happens to be defined in any of the relevant enactments of the State. Definition of the term "grove" would be found in sec. 5 (15) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. A perusal thereof would go to show that by "grove land" is meant only the agricultural land but which cannot be so used because of the number of trees growing thereon. This cannot, therefore, be taken to mean a "chhota Jungle" also.