DAN SINGH Vs. MAJI SAHIBA GOVIND KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated the 12th August, 1961, u/s. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises under the following circumstances. The Jagir of the appellant having been resumed under the Act, he presented a list of his personal properties to be declared as his private. A number of objections have been raised against it. The learned Addl. Commissioner has disposed of the case only with the observation that sec. 23 of the Act does not empower the Jagir Commissioner to decide the disputes about the title or rights between the jagirdar and its relations and other persons. He has also observed that the Tehsildar or the Deputy Collector, Jagir have not indicated any specific grounds whereby these rights claimed by the Jagirdar should be considered to be objectionable in terms of sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. No conflict of interest between the State Government and the Jagirdar is involved. The question whether the rights claimed vest in the Jagirdar or the private parties is not necessary to be decided for the purposes of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. Such respective rights of the parties concerned as are really existing would continue as heretofore. THIS will not, however, require any specific adjudication by this Court. " With this observation he has refrained from passing any orders in the case. Obviously, this is an order based on a misconception of the provisions of law in this behalf. Under the scheme of the Act, as a result of the resumption of jagir u/s 21 thereof, the right, title and interest of the jagirdar and or every other person claiming through him in the jagir lands including forests, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, village sites, bazars and mela-grounds and mines and minerals stand resumed to the Government free from all incumbrances under Sec. 22 of the Act. Sec. 23 of the Act provides an exception to this general rule operating as a consequence upon the resumption of the jagir. It is that - "s. 23 (1 ). . . . . . . . . " (a) Khudkasht lands of a Jagirdar; " (b) (i) all open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in his continuous possession which including possession of any predecessor-in-interest) for (six) years immediately before the date of resumption. (ii) (iii) all private buildings, places of worship, and walls situated in, and trees standing on lands, included in such enclosures or house-sites, as are specified in clause (1) above, or land appertaining to such buildings of places of worship: (iv) all groves and fruit trees wherever situate, belonging to or held by the jagirdar or any other person; " (c) all private wells and buildings belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person; " (d) all tanks in the personal occupation of the Jagirdar in the Jagir lands; "shall continue to belong to or be held by such Jagirdar or other person". Sub-Sec. 2, of this Sec. 23 provides that any question arising whether any property is of the nature referred to in Sub-Sec. (3) shall be referred to the Jagir Commissioner, who may after holding the prescribed inquiry make such order thereon as he deems fit. THIS provision of law therefore entitles the Jagir Commissioner and the Jagir Commissioner alone to decide all disputes regarding the property which can be declared to be "private" of the jagirdar or any other person in order to save it from being resumed under Sec. 22 of the Act. An order can be passed in favour of any claimant under this section only when it is the property of the nature covered by Sec. 23 (1 ). It is for the Jagir Commissioner and the Jagir Commissioner alone therefore to decide in respect of all the properties claimed by the jagirdar, or any person through him (his relations being the persons claiming through him) whether the property claimed fell under any of the categories laid down by Sec. 23 (1) and whether it deserved to be allowed to be continued to belong or to be held by such jagirdar or other person.

(2.) THE learned Additional Jagir Commissioner has, therefore, very clearly misconceived the scope of the provision of law in this respect and has thereby committed an error resulting in error in the decision of the case on merits.