STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHANU PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. 23 and 30 of 1959 of Jaipur have been filed under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against one and the same order of the learned Jagir Commissioner dated (27. 1. 5 9)/ (4. 2. 59) whereby the claim of Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, ex-jagirdar Dudu was finalised under sec. 32 (2) of the Act. Thikana Dudu was resumed on 4. 2. 56. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, ex-Jagirdar Thikana Dudu, hereinafter referred to as the jagirdar, filed his claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant on 17. 4. 56. The total income in this claim is alleged to be Rs. 68,447-0-6 as below : - Income from Amount 1. Land Revenue 57,054/2/6/- 2. Forest 915/11/9/- 3. Grazing dues 5,439/15/- 4. Mines 141/- 5. Non-agricultural uses of land. . . 447/4/3/- 6. Sale of Abadi and culturable land 2,123/11/- 7. Salt compensation 260/5/- 8. Excise compensation 1,494/15/- 9. Tribute from sub-grantees 500/- 68,447/-/6

(2.) ON 12. 7. 56 the jagirdar was required to indicate the income which he had realised after 1. 2. 56 and also to submit an application for interim compensation. This application was submitted by the jagirdar on 30. 7. 56 wherein the total income of the jagirdar was shown as Rs. 68,447/-/6, i. e. the same which was entered in the original claim. ON 7. 8. 56 the office of the Additional Commissioner, Jagir held this income to be Rs. 66,424 for purposes of interim compensation. I Thereupon the jagirdar submitted an application to the Jagir Commissioner on 19. 10. 56 to the effect that a sum of Rs. 2,023/-has been deducted from the income of the Thikana as stated by him, that this deduction was unjustified, that interim compensation had been worked out on the amount so reduced and that the same may be corrected accordingly. A similar request was put up before the Jagir Commissioner on 14. 11. 56. ON 12. 6. 56 the jagirdar put up an application before the Jagir Commissioner alleging therein that the claim filed on 1. 4. 56 (correct date 17. 4. 56) was wrong as it was filed by a Kamdar, who had no legal knowledge, that he was ignorant of the certain items of income which should have been included within the claim and that the same was likely to cause considerable loss to him. Some illustrations were also mentioned in this application. ONe was with regard to income from contract of fish. The other was with regard to income from sale of grass, wood, Longphala etc. The learned Jagir Commissioner ordered that "the idea of the fact that the Kamdar has not done this or that cannot be entertained. However, he is allowed to submit claim and only on verification it will be considered as to how much and what amount should be allowed". The amended claim was subsequently produced on 14. 6. 57 with a total income of Rs. 95,641/6/- as below : - Income from Amount 1. Land Revenue 53,835/6/3 2. Forest 985/11/2 3. Grazing dues 5,430/15/ 4. Mines 141/-/ 5. Non-agricultural uses of land 31,328/14/ 6. Sale of Aabadi and culturable land 2,093/3/1 7. Salt compensation 260/ 5/ 8. Excise compensation 1,494/15/ 9. Tribute from sub-grantees 32/ - / - 95,641/ 61-

(3.) HAVING thus commented generally we will now proceed to subject the account books to an intrinsic scrutiny with a view to determine its credibility or otherwise. The first consideration that arises is the withholding of the scribe of the account books for the Smt. years relevant for purposes of this claim. One of the objections raised by the learned Government Advocate against the provisional award was that the account books appear to have been written at one time by one and the same man. Even then the scribe was not thought fit to be examined in the case. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation the legal presumption would be that the evidence of the scribe if made available would have been adverse to the jagirdar. The evidence that has been led in the case is much void the mark. The witnesses are either unconcerned with the transactions as entered in the account books or have only vague things to depose. Jaidev a witness of the jagirdar deposed that income used to accrue to the Thikana from Palapani etc. and that in Svt. 2008 and 2009 he had also taken grass for about Rs. 700/ -. This amount finds no mention in the account books. The same may be said about the statement of Ghisa. To appreciate the condition of the accounts we got one statement prepared from the account books by the jagirdar himself with regard to the income for svt. years 2008, 2009 and 2010 in respect of the main terms of the non-agricultural uses of land-ghas, pala, darkhat and loongpapri. It was also found that this Thikana used to issue receipts for payments received by it. The statement was therefore required to show as to whether any receipt was issued in respect of the items included within the claim or not. The result was that out of 8 villages included in this jagir no system of issue of receipts existed in 7 of them, namely Gangari Kalan, Dhupri, Kachnar, Palia Kalan, Hathukra, Bhanslana and Hawaspura. Thus the entries in respect of the items of the non-agricultural uses of land in respect of these 7 villages of this Thikana have no corroboration by receipt issued to the payees. In some cases of village Dudu of this Thikana receipts were found to have been issued in respect of petty sums of a few annas or a couple of rupees. But surprisingly enough no such receipts were issued in the following cases: - 1. Sale of trees. (1) Rs. 800/ -/- from Chandmal (2) Rs. 295/12/- from Chandmal (3) Rs. 660/ -/- from Gangaram 2. Sale of Loongpapri. (1) Rs. 551/- from Dholu Bodu (2) Rs. 1938/- from Dholu Bodu 3. Sale of Pala. (1) Rs. 664/- from Asamian (2) Rs. 557/- from Kalu