RAIZ AHAMAD Vs. COLLECTOR AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 66 (3) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Act No. III of 1955 ). For the sake of brevity it will be hereafter referred to as the Act. The appellants claim to be co-sharers in a jagir village Baneori, Girdawari circle Shrinagar, Tehsil Ajmer. A copy of the entries in the record of rights (Khewat) of the Jagirdars of the village in question prepared under sec. 132 (2) (i) (b) of Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 as it stood at the time of vesting of the jagir has been filed and it shows that the appellants have definite shares in the jagir in question as specified in the 'khewat'.

(2.) THE main point which arises for consideration in this appeal is about the interpretation of section 2 (i) (v) of the Act, which defines the word "estate". THE definition shows that "estate" includes all rights in a estate " or a share in or a part of estate". According to the Additional Commissioner (who, we are given to understand, has also the power of Compensation Commissioner under the Act, whose order is under appeal) the word "estate" as defined in the Act, must mean a demarcated share of estate; whereas the appellants contend that it is not necessary that the shares should be demarcated in order to constitute 'estate' within the meaning of the term. It is urged that the share in a estate may be held in common tenancy even then, for purposes of assessment of compensation, the shares should to taken to be distinct estates and the holders of those shares should be regarded as separate intermediaries. 'intermediaries' also has been defined under sec. 2 (i) (viii) of the Act, which means a holder of an estate and includes the various other classes of persons as mentioned in the definition. It is claimed by the appellants that since their shares have been definitely mentioned in the 'khewat' they should be taken to be intermediaries or holders of different estates in their own rights and assessment should be made on that basis. Paragraph. 1 of the Schedule of the Act also indicates that each intermediary shall be treated as a separate unit for purposes of assessment and as such the Additional Jagir Commissioner, the appellants submit, fell into error in not assessing compensation accordingly. THE Commissioner, however, is of opinion that the interpretation of the term 'estate', as suggested by the appellants, cannot be adopted, since it would lead to absurdities in working out the amount of compensation. He points out that under paragraph 3 (1),the revenue payable to the co-shares by the biswedars and rent payable by tenants of all classes has to be taken into consideration, in order to determine the gross income of each co-sharer and this could not be done because there is no demarcation between the co-sharers inter se of their interest in the estate and it is not known what tenants paid to which co-sharer and the amount paid, nor particular area is assigned to any co-sharer We are unable to agree that there is any such absurdity involved. THE income of the entire village at sanctioned village rates, according to the rules prescribed, could be ascertained without any difficulty and then after making the necessary deductions the income of the various co-sharers determined in proportion to their respective shares. If in distributing compensation the share of the co-sharers has to be taken into account we see no reason why in determining the income also, the share of the co-sharer cannot be taken into account and then the amount of compensation determined in each case according to law. A estate may be held in common tenancy by various co-sharers and yet it is well known that the income can be divided between them in proportion to their shares. THEre is therefore no reason why the same criterion should not be applied in determining the shares of these co-sharers in the present case. It is too much to suggest that unless the shares of each co-sharer had been demarcated the interest held by them could not be regarded as an estate within the meaning of the law. Estate, as defined in the Act, nowhere says 'demarcated share in the estate'. It merely says it includes a share in the estate. Where is the justification then for importing an additional word that the share should be demarcated? THE reason given by the Compensation Commissioner for coming to a contrary conclusion appears to us to be rather far-fetched and unjustified. THE contention of the appellants must, therefore, prevail. THE income of the property should be determined as a whole and then after making necessary deductions the income of each co-sharer in proportion to his share should be determined and compensation assessed on that basis.