RICHPAL Vs. SURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred by Richpal and Vidhya Dhar, who claim to be the co -sharers of the Jagirdar, deserves to be accepted only on the ground that the proceedings before the learned Dy. Collector Jagir have been taken more in breach of law than in the observance thereof. What we find from the record is that about two dozens of claims have been dealt with on one file and on the application itself the verification and all the calculations have been made by corrections and over - writings and a rubber stamp has been put showing "Finalised gross income Rs. 193.69 and khud -kasht rent allowed Rs.54.13" and the learned Dy. Collector Jagir has put his initials almost illegible within this rubber stamped endorsement. There does not appear from the record that any attempt had been made to find out which were the co -sharers of the Jagirdar. Nor has any award been issued provisionally to Jet all concerned file objections. Vide sec. 29 of the Act, a co -sharer entitled under any existing Jagir Law, is entitled to receive his share out of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation given to a Jagirdar. Rule 37 -E prescribes the mode of enquiry in respect of co -sharers. It lays down that the procedure prescribed by Rule 37 -D shall be followed to determine the persons entitled under any existing Jagir law to receive any share of the income of the Jagir land. For the purpose, a notification has to be issued in the Rajasthan Gazette as well as in one or more news -papers circulating in Rajasthan calling upon the persons who under any existing Jagir law are entitled to receive share out of the income of any jagir resumed and who are desirous of receiving out of compensation and rehabilitation payable to the Jagirdar to apply to the Collector of the District in which the headquarters of the jagir are situated within a period to be specified therein. Such an application is to be submitted by the person concerned in Form No. 12 prescribed under the Rules. It is only when such an application in response to such a notification is not received that it can be presumed that there is no person entitled under any existing Jagir law who can be deemed to be a co -sharer or that he is not desirous of getting his share under the Act. Where an application in Form No. 12 is received as soon as may be after the receipt thereof and not in any case later than 15 days thereafter a copy of the same is to be endorsed to the Jagirdar concerned asking him to state within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the same if he has any objection in respect to the facts mentioned in the application or in respect of the grant of the share. The Jagirdar is to send within one month on the receipt of this communication his reply in writing giving full reasons for it. He is also required to return the copy of the application. If no objections are preferred by the Jagirdar within the period prescribed, it shall be presumed that he has no objection to the acceptance of the application. 2. The Collector is also required to make an enquiry irrespective of the fact whether any objections have been received or not from the Jagirdar. He can make such an enquiry as he may deem necessary and forward his recommendations based thereon to the Jagir Commissioner, who may, after such an enquiry or further enquiry as he may deem necessary fix the amount payable to the cosharer. An application from a co -sharer or an objection with respect thereto from the Jagirdar can be entertained by the Collector even after the expiry of the time if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Collector that the co -sharer or Jagirdar was prevented by sufficient cause from submitting the same within the period allowed. All enquiries are to be made in the presence of the persons concerned and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. We have looked into the whole file and we fail to find that any such course of action has anywhere been adopted by the learned Dy. Collector Jagir. He has not even cared, it can be said without fear of contradiction, to apply his mind to find out whether there was or was not any other co - sharer of the Jagirdar filing the claim before him. 4. Any action taken in contravention of the provision of law cannot be up -held. Nor can any person be allowed to suffer as a result of the wrong action. We, therefore, accept this appeal, sat aside the judgment of the learned Dy. Collector Jagir and remand the case to mm to proceed to determine the award in this case afresh after first determining the co -sharer or maintenanceholder, if any, and fixing their shares and amounts, if any, by taking action in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above.