GOPI BAI Vs. CHANCHAL BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Deputy Collector Jagir, Bhilwara, dated 20th April, 1962 by Which he has rejected the claim of the appellant as maintenance holder in the disputed jagir only on the ground of limitation. The learned Deputy Collector has observed that from the report of Sri Purshottam Lal dated 6th December, 1960 it was clear that the Jagir had been resumed on 23rd April, 1954 when the appellant (the applicant before him) wanted that it should be treated to have been resumed from 13st July, 1958, but that still the claim for maintenance was submitted two months after the date of resumption and was, therefore, time-barred in accordance with rule 37 (D) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954, which laid down that such a claim should be preferred within two months from the date of resumption. THIS observation is apparently contrary to the very clear provisions of law in this behalf. Rule 37 (7) does lay down the mode of enquiry in respect of persons in receipt of maintenance allowance but vide sub-rule (1) it says only - " (1) For the purpose of determining the persons entitled to receive the maintenance allowance and the amount to be paid to them under Sec. 27, the Jagir Commissioner shall, (after the resumption of Jagir), by notification in the Rajasthan Ga2ette and in one or more important newspapers circulating in Rajasthan, call upon persons who under any existing Jagir law are entitled to receive such maintenance allowance and who are desirous of receiving it out of the compensation to be paid to the Jagirdar to apply to the Collector of the district in which the head-quarters of the Jagir are situated. A period shall be specified in the said notification for the submission of the application. The application shall be submitted in duplicate in Form No. 11. If no such application is submitted within the period mentioned in the notification, it; shall be presumed that the person entitled to receive a maintenance allowance is not desirous of getting his maintenance allowance under the Act. "

(2.) IT nowhere says as has been wrongly understood by the learned Deputy Collector that an application for the grant of maintenance should be preferred within a period of two months from the date of resumption. On the other hand such applications are to be invited by issuing a notification after the resumption of Jagir in the Rajasthan Gazette and in one or more important newspapers circulating in Rajasthan calling upon the persons entitled under any existing Jagir law to receive the maintenance allowance and who would be desirous to receive it out of the compensation payable to the jagirdar. Such applications are, therefore, to be preferred in response to such notification and within the period specified in that notification. Nowhere has it been made incumbent upon any person claiming a maintenance allowance to file an application within two months of the date of the resumption of the Jagir itself. Vide sub-rule (5) even the failure to prefer such an application within the period specified in the Notification can be condoned if it is satisfactorily established that the maintenance-holder was prevented by sufficient cause from submitting the same within the said period. There is thus no statutory period of limitation fixed within which an application for the grant of maintenance allowance out of the compensation payable for the resumption of the Jagir has to be filed. The learned Deputy Collector has obviously acted erroneously in dismissing the application on the plea of the bar of limitation in this case. Besides, he should not have even acted as he has done on the report of Sri Purshottam Lal without, discussing as to who he was and how that report was relevant. The act performed by the Deputy Collector within the provisions of the Act and the Rules are quasi-judicial and these should be performed in a judicial manner and with reference to things which should be evidence in accordance with law.