PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are cross appeals against one and the same judgment of the Dy. Collector Jagir, Alwar, dated 9. 6. 61, which are clearly pre-mature inasmuch as the award is not found to have been finally determined u/s 32 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against which alone an appeal can lie u/s 39 of the Act. It appears, the parties have been mis-led by an observation at the end of the judgment made by the learned Dy. Collector Jagir that a copy of the Order be sent immediately to the Legal Adviser of the Government and the Revenue Secretary. This, the learned Dy. Collector seems to have done erroneously thinking that he had passed his orders finally, so far as the income from non-agricultural uses of land was concerned. But the learned Dy. Collector Jagir cannot do so piece-meal. Sec. 32 of the Act requires the Dy. Collector Jagir to determine first provisionally after such an enquiry as he may deem fit, the amount of compensation payable to the Jagirdar along with the amount of maintenance holders and co-sharers and the amount recoverable from him. Thereafter he is to let all the interested parties have an opportunity of being heard in the matter and then alone make the"final" order. It is only this "final" order made in the manner allowed by Sec. 32 that he has to communicate u/s 3 3 of the Act to the Government and the Jagirdar and other interested persons. This does not require him, as he has wrongly understood, to communicate to the Government every order by which he determines any part of the gross income of the Jagirdar, so far as he is himself concerned. All the incomes so found finally by him have to be incorporated into the "final" award to be determined u/s. 32 (2) of the Act and a proper order incorporating all his previous orders has to be written out for the purpose. This order should contain what was the claim of the Jagirdar; what was the evidence produced or how was any income verified from the records prescribed or any authority prescribed; what was the amount determined provisionally; what objections were, if any, received against it; how those objections were disposed of and with what result and then what was the amount under various heads determined finally and for what reasons. It is such an order alone along with which a final award be prepared on the prescribed Form that is to be communicated u/s 32 of the Act to the Government, Jagirdar and every other interested persons, and none else. The order that is being impugned before us cannot certainly be called to be the order of the type referred to above. It dose lay down what was the Jagir when it was resumed, when the claim was preferred and what were the incomes claimed. Then it proceeds to determine on the basis of the evidence produced the income under non-agricultural uses of land. Then it proceeds to lay down what is the rental income to be allowed. Further, it starts with the discussion on the incomes from the grazing fees; and determines it after discussing the evidence produced. THESE are all, however, "gross income" as laid down by cl. 2 of the Second Schedule of the Act. He had to calculate the "net income" on the basis of this "gross income" as laid down by Clause 4 of the Schedule after deducting therefrom the "tribute" payable by the Jagirdar and the "administrative charges" along with any sums of recurring nature. Having thus arrived at the "net income" in the manner laid down by this Clause 4 only he could have proceeded to determine the amount of compensation and rehabilitation payable to the Jagirdar. He has, however, nowhere done so. Rather, he was discussing the amount of "tribute" to be deducted out of the gross income and had directed that certain verifications be made from the Tehsil. The matter rested there so far as the matter of "tribute" to be deducted was to be decided. Even the "administrative charges" has yet to be deducted. So also were to be determined the sums of recurring nature due, if any. Having thus found out all the deductions alone could he proceed to determine the "net income" and then alone to fix the amounts of compensation and rehabilitation payable. As he has done nothing of the sort as yet, in cannot be said that the learned Dy. Collector has determined the award ''finally" in this case. He could not also, therefore, send any communication to the Government or its Legal Advisor. Vide Sec. 22 of the Act, the appeal could lie only against an award made finally vide Sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 32 of the Act. The impugned order being not an order of this nature, no appeal can be heard against it. Both these appeals are, therefore, premature and deserve to be rejected. .