BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the Collector (Jagir) Bundi dated 11. 9. 61 by which he has rejected a representation made by the appellant that he should be granted compensation for the Jagir resumed from his possession with the observation that the claim has been rejected previously by two Collectors and he could not reopen it. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Government Advocate in the matter. The case makes a strange reading. The appellant had a Jagir in Kota Distt. also besides the present Jagir in Bundi District. Kota Jagir was of a higher value. In former Rajasthan the Jagirs of the value of Rs. 200/- and above had been taken over in the management of the Government. When the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act came into force, they were also resumed. The compensation and rehabilitation payable to the appellant was prepared in Kota and paid to the appellant. When the claim for the Jagir in Bundi Distt. was preferred, a note was prepared by the Office of the Collector (Jagir) Bundi that as the appellant did not disclose this grant when the case of the resumption of Jagir in Kota Distt. was finalised, this case had been referred to the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur for orders, and therefore, the present claim be kept pending. The officer-in-charge of the Section, however, very strangely wrote on this (

(2.) [kkfjt djus dh Lohfr dks is'k gs**) The then Collector Shri Shiv Singh equally or more strangely simply initialled this. After some time the Deputy Collector (Jagir) Kota, who was perhaps in-charge of the Jagir Works in Bundi also then, put a note that in Jaipur it was discussed in a meeting that such Jagir of the Jagirdars as was not included for awarding compensation at the time when the compensation for the Jagirs valuing more than Rs. 200/- was paid may now be taken up for adding the whole amount of compensation and rehabilitation and the difference may be paid on Form 68. He also submitted that the previous order given in the case should be deemed to be cancelled. The case again reached after some time to the same Officer-in-charge as had proposed the cancellation of the claim in the past. He gave a note on the office note that as no resolution referred to had been made available and the case had already been rejected, the claim be again rejected. This time also the then Learned Collector a different incumbent, simply initialled it. Thus the claim came to be rejected without any action again. The appellant thereafter submitted a representation which was rejected by the Collector by the order impugned in this appeal. Thus it would be evident that the appellant is being denied the amount of compensation and rehabilitation due to him for the resumption of his Jagir situated in Bundi Distt. only because he did not make a mention of this Jagir while taking the compensation and rehabilitation grant for the resumption of his Jagir situated in Kota Distt. This is being done not on the allegation that the appellant has tried to play any fraud upon the authorities. Even if there had been committed any fraud, the appellant could have been prosecuted under Sec. 25 of the Act. But there was no provision to disentitle him to receive the compensation and rehabilitation payable to him under the Act. Vide Sec. 26 of the Act every Jagirdar whose Jagir land is resumed is entitled to receive compensation. The appellant cannot, therefore, be deprived of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation payable to him under the Act. What can be done is only that the compensation and rehabilitation payable for the Jagirs in both the Districts in Kota and Bundi shall be worked together and the appellant shall be paid only the difference that be found payable. In other words, he would be deprived of the extra multiple of rehabilitation, if any, on account of the division of the Jagirs in two Districts. Under the circumstances the question arises as to whether an appeal can be heard against the order being impugned or not. It may be stated here that no order other than this order has been passed by any Collector or any other responsible officer in this case after granting a hearing to the appellant as yet. The previous orders were simply initialled on the office notes and could not at all be taken to be the orders passed under this Act which a officer acting thereunder can pass only after necessary enquiry and granting a hearing to the Jagirdar concerned. The impugned order shall, therefore, be treated to be an order under Sec. 32 (2) of the Act and, therefore, appealable under Sec. 39 thereof. As the appellant is to be allowed the amounts payable to him in lieu of the resumption of his Jagir under the Act this appeal deserves to be accepted and the case remanded for being heard and determined in accordance with the law in the light of the observations made above. ! We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order appealed against and remand the case to the Collector, Bundi, for working out, in accordance with the provisions of law in this behalf, the total amounts of compensation and rehabilitation payable for all the Jagirs situated in both the Districts of Kota and Bundi resumed from the possession of the appellant, and then order payment to the appellant of such amount as may be found still payable to him after subtracting therefrom the amount already paid to him. .