FATEH SINGH Vs. RAJA SANGRAM SINGHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, dated 23. 6. 61 arising under the following circumstances deserves to be accepted for reasons given below. The village of Majipura having been claimed by the respondent Jagirdar of Thikana Khandela Khurd in his Jagir, an objection was raised on behalf of the appellants Bhomias. THIS claim was upheld after enquiry by the trial court and the decision was confirmed even in appeal. At the time of the computing of the amount of compensation a new plea was raised on behalf of the respondent Thikana that Chak Majipura was not part of village Majipura and therefore the decision regarding Majipura did not apply to the village known by the name of Chak Majipura. Therefore, the appellants, had to prefer another objection giving the history of the case and making a prayer that the compensation for the resumption of Chak Majipura be ordered to be given to them. They also produced along with the application a certificate by the village Panchayat that the Chak Majipura did form the part of the village Majipura itself. It was contested on behalf of the respondent. The learned Jagir Commissioner after hearing the parties and looking into the evidence produced by them held that he had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the matter. The ratio of his decision is that in the Settlement Records there are two villages Majipura and Chak Majipura and that the Jagir Commissioner was not competent to make any correction therein. Obviously, it was an approach quite erroneous in law. It is only the correction of entries in the Settlement Records which is not in the competence of the Jagir Commissioner under sec. 37 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, otherwise all questions relating to title, right or interest in any Jagir land arising in the course of a proceeding under this Act is to be enquired into and decided by the Jagir Commissioner himself. He is debarred from doing so only when the question so arising has been already determined by a competent authority. There is no contention, much less a finding, in the case that the question relating to the title to the Jagir land of Chak Majipura has been already decided by any competent authority, and therefore the learned Jagir Commissioner had not been left with a jurisdiction to determine it. As for the question of the correction of entries in the Settlement Records, it was nobody's case. The appellants never came with the prayer that the entries in the Settlement Record be corrected. The enquiry as well as the finding by the learned Jagir Commissioner is, therefore, in variance with the pleading itself. What the appellants wanted was that the Chak Majipura be also treated to be their Jagir and not that of the respondent Thikana Khandela Khurd. They wanted this decision on the same basis as that of village Majipura. The learned. Jagir Commissioner could for this purpose look into the record of the Settlement to ensure whether Majipura and Chak Majipura were really one and the same village or were two different villages. It was necessary to do so because it appears to be an admitted position between the parties that it was only for the first time in Smt. 2008 that a separate village by the name of Chak Majipura came into existence. The learned Jagir Commissioner has been pleased to examine in this connection the judgment of the Assistance Record Officer dated 4. 5. 56 and has come to a conclusion that although the learned Assistant Record Officer was in fact dealing with the claims to lands in Majipura and Chak Majipura in the operative portion of the order, he has given a judgment only regarding the Khasra Numbers of village Majipura and not at all about the Khasra numbers in Chak Majipura. Even if it was so, the learned Jagir Commissioner was not bound by that order. It was not a final order. Rather, it was a report submitted to the Settlement Officer for sanction. What was the order of the Settlement Officer was not even cared to be looked at and found out by the learned Jagir Commissioner. By this we do not mean to suggest that the learned Jagir Commissioner was bound by the order of the Settlement Officer. As discussed above, the question relating to title to any jagir land (and the present was a case of this type) lay absolutely within the competence of the Jagir Commissioner himself, there being no law under which the Settlement Authorities could have decided it and, therefore, any decision made by them could not be treated to have been a determination made by a competent authority. No other determination was ever relied upon by any party in this case. There was thus no determination by any competent authority to debar the learned Jagir Commissioner from enquiring into the merits of the claim made before him and deciding it in accordance with law. The appellants could not go to any competent court to seek the remedy as has been directed by the learned Jagir Commissioner. It was he and he alone in whom was vested the right of deciding the claim after the resumption of the Jagir under Sec. 37 of the Act. The learned Jagir Commissioner has, therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and thus acted erroneously resulting in an error in the decision of the case.

(2.) THIS appeal is, therefore, hereby accepted, the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner is set aside and the case remanded to him for determining the claim of the appellants to the Jagir of that Majipura after enquiring into the merit) in accordance with law. .