STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been presented on behalf of the State Government against the judgment of the Additional Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 13. 6. 60 by which he has finalised the claim No. F. (37) JC/skr. The only item questioned through this appeal is that of rental income allowed to the respondent. The contention is that the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules made under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagirs Resumption Act, 1952 as it stands amended have been overlooked and the rental income instead of being calculated at the settled rates has been computed on the unsettled basis. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the respondent that the amended rule 9 could be made applicable only when the provisions of sec. 7 (3) of the Act were attracted. His argument is that the respondent jagirdar submitted the statement of his income for the year 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52 as required by sub-sec. (1) of that sec. in compliance of the notice given by the Collector and there fore, he cannot be deemed to have failed to furnish the statement in respect of his jagir lands. We have sent for file containing the assessment of this jagir land to land revenue and examined the proceedings of the same in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order sheet dated 4. 4. 58 thereof would go to show that the jagirdar respondent instead of submitting the statement required under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 of the Act, wanted time to produce the original record itself for finding out his income for the relevant three agricultural years. But he never appeared after that. His son alone continued to present himself on dates succeeding that date. He neither submitted any statement signed by the, Jagirdar respondent himself nor produced the records as promised by the jagirdar. On 7. 6. 58, therefore, the learned Deputy Collector, Jagir ordered the proceedings to be filed.

(2.) IT may be observed that on 1. 3. 58 the learned Deputy Collector, Jagir had recorded the order that as the jagirdar had failed to comply with the notice of furnishing the statement and a period longer than sixty days had elapsed the assessment on his jagir may be made on the basis of the settlement record. On 27. 3. 58 the son of Jagirdar Shri Hanumant Singh presented an affidavit that his father, the jagirdar respondent, had come to learn of the notice only on 14. 3. 58 and he could not, therefore, submit the statements earlier. On this affidavit and application, the learned Deputy Collector returned the statement as they had not been signed by the jagirdar himself and allowed the jagirdar to submit fresh statement and prove them. IT was on this basis that the jagirdar appeared on 4th of April before the learned Deputy Collector and undertook to produce the original record instead of submitting the statement themselves. The learned counsel for respondent contends that the final order in the matter by the leraned Deputy Collector Jagir on 30. 4. 60 which has been confirmed by the Collector on 31. 5. 60, would go to show that he had allowed, on the representation of the jagirdar that he had remained ill throughout the intervening period, that he could furnish fresh statements and it was in compliance thereof that the fresh statements were produced by the jagirdar and they were taken by the learned Deputy Collector and Collector to be correct and assessment made on the basis thereof. He, therefore contends that the provisions of Sec. 7 (3) of the Act. cannot be deemed to have been attracted in case. The point for determination is whether the failure of the jagirdar to submit his statement of rental income under sec. 7 (1) in compliance of the original notice would attract the provisions of Sec. 7 (3) and thereby bring into play the provisions of the amended rule 9 or whether the Collector's allowing the jagirdar to submit the statement on restoration of proceedings would mean that the jagirdar had not defaulted and thereby the circumstances mentioned in sec 7 (3) would not be deemed to have come into existence and thereby amended rule 9 would not apply. The order of the Collector dated 31. 5. 60 can be read only as granting permission to the jagirdar to submit the statement for purposes of assessment even then. But it cannot be said to mean that the jagirdar would be deemed to have not defaulted under the terms of sec. 7 (3) of the Act. and thereby not invoked the application of rule 9. Once having failed to furnish the required statement in response to the notice issued under sec. 7 (1) of the Act, sub-sec. (3) of that sec. would come into play. Any permission by way of restoration to let the jagirdar submit statement would not debar the application of sec. 7 (3) and consequently the provisions of Rule 9.