VIJAYA RAJENDRA SURI Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by learned Members of the Board of Revenue under section 12 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

(2.) THE fact giving rise to it are that the muafi estate of the respondents was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. VI of 1952 - which will hereinafter be referred as "the Act" ). THE claim of the muafidars for compensation and rehabilitation grant was inquired into by the Deputy Collector, Jaipur, Udaipur. During the course of that inquiry, the appellant Vijaya Rajendra Suri filed an application before the said Deputy Collector requesting him to determine his interest in the jagir-land and award him a sum out of the compensation which was to be given to the muafidars, whose jagir-land was mortgaged with him. THE Deputy Collector rejected his claim relying on the decision of the Revenue Board in Sharvan Nath etc. Vs. Kundanlal, case No. 10 (Chittor) of 1958, decided on 21st February, 59. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed by him under sec. 39 of the Act before the Board of Revenue. He relied on another decision of a Division Bench of the Revenue Board in case No. 10 (Udaipur) of 1958, decided on 15th June, 1959 in which a contrary view was taken. Thus, there being two conflicting decisions of two different Benches of the Revenue Board, the case was referred before a larger, Bench, consisting of four learned Members, including two learned Members who had expressed divergent opinions in the earlier cases referred above. It appears from the language of the reference made by this larger Bench that the learned members were inclined to hold that the view taken earlier in case No. 10 of 1958, decided on 21st February, 1959, Shravan Nath etc. Vs. Kundan Lal, but they considered it proper to make a reference to this Court, because some civil courts had also taken the view that the Jagir Commissioner alone had jurisdiction to determine the interest of a mortgagee under sec. 37 of the Act and the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred by sec. 46 thereof.

(3.) OUR reply to the reference, therefore, is that the claim of a mortgagee of a jagir land is not envisaged by sec. 37 of the Act and, if there is a dispute about a secured debt beteeen the Jagirdar and the mortgagee of a jagir land, that is to be decided by a civil court and not by the Jagir Commissioner. In view of the fact that only a subtle question of law was involved in the reference, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. .