STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAO TAKHAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the State of Rajasthan against Shri Takhat Singh, Jagirdar of Thikana Jawas, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Jagir Commissioner dated 7-2-1969 and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 5-5-1971. It is also prayed that a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from claiming the award in the sum of Rs. 80,600/- be issued.

(2.) WHILE we have faithfully indicated the prayers made in the writ petition the body of the petition, however contains a simple grievance. It relates to the grant of compensation for excise income, the average of three years whereof comes to Rs. 22,325-66p for the purpose of computing the compensation. The grounds of attack are that sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 prohibits distillation without licence and it came into force on 1-7-1959. Deriving any income, which was prohibited by sec. 16 of the Excise Act was violation of law and the Jagirdar, respondent No. 1, was not entitled to any compensation on that score. The second ground, which is rather unusual, is that clause 2(h) of the Second Schedule to the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, which authorises the payment of compensation to a Jagirdar, because his excise administration and the production or manufacture of excisable articles in Jagir lands was taken over, to be calculated on the basis of average income of three years preceding the basic year, arose out of a mistake because the Rajasthan Legislature was oblivious of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Although on the basis of the grounds aforesaid the prayer should have been only for the disallowance of the payment of compensation relating to this head of income, the State of Rajasthan has prayed) that the entire compensation awarded to the Jagirdar must not be paid and a writ of prohibition, quite contrary to the accepted principles underlying a writ of prohibition, is sought. The respondent No. 1 has filed an answer to the petition, saying that sec. 47 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act has an overriding effect and the petition must fail when compensation is expressly provided to a Jagirdar whose jagir has been resumed under the heading 'income derived from excise'.