SHANKER Vs. NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector Jagir, Bhilwara, dated 16th June, 1962, under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) The jagir Thekla in Tehsil Sahada was resumed under the Act. Both the parties to the present appeal were found to be entitled to the grant of compensation and rehabilitation therefor. It was also found that they were entitled to get only the rental income and no other. The provisional award was accordingly determined stating the amounts payable to each one of them which were different in accordance with the rent assessed on the jagir lands in their respective possession. The same were the amounts determined finally. No objection was ever raised by anybody against the amount so determined. The bonds to be given to the parties should also, therefore, have been indented accordingly. But the bonds were indented for the total sum in four equal shares for each of the party. When this came to the notice of the appellants, who had been awarded a bigger amount of rental income they submitted an application to the learned Deputy Collector Jagir for rectifying the mistake. In this application anyhow although they meant to state that it was only a clerical mistake which could be corrected by the Deputy Collector Jagir at any time, it was also stated that the learned Deputy Collector could review the case suo -moto and order the correction. This was contested on behalf of the respondents who claimed that they were equal co -sharers and that the bonds had been indented correctly. After hearing the parties the learned Deputy Collector held on 16th April, 1962 that when the parties had taken away the bonds and had not raised any objection at that time, the review application could not be accepted. He also observed that if an objection had been raised at the time of the distribution of the bonds, the mistake could have been rectified and the revised corrected bonds could have been sent for. At the same time he also made an observation and gave a direction that a Departmental enquiry into the affair as to how the bonds different from the amounts finally awarded were indented by the Bonds Section was necessary and he directed that the same be made by Sri Bhatnagar. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent has very vehemently opposed the maintainability of this appeal. His grounds are that the order under appeal was not one under sec. 32(2) of the Act, which alone was appealable to the Board. It has been also urged that no appeal lay against an order rejecting an application for review and that for that reason also the appeal could not lie. Both these contentions are not without force. No appeal is provided against an order indenting and distributing the bonds. Nor has an appeal been provided against an order rejecting the review petition. But the main question for determination in this case is whether the impugned order can be taken to be an order of this type above.