UMED SINGH Vs. SHUBH KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Pali dated the 23rd April, 1963 rejecting the appellant's application for grant of maintenance allowance under sec. 27 of the Jagirs Act. THE counsel for the respondent present resisted the stay application of the appellant on the ground that the appeal itself was not maintainable against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Jagir due to the fact that this was not an order under sec. 32, sub-sec. 2 of the Jagirs Act, as no final award was passed by the Deputy Collector, Jagir. THE learned counsel for the appellant's reply was that the appeal was clearly maintainable under sec. 27 of the Jagirs Act read with sec. 32 of the same Act. THE Deputy Collector Jagir has to look into the ingredients for grant of maintenance allowance u/s. 27 of the Jagirs Act after holding an enquiry and this order he has to pass under sec. 32 of the same Act accepting or rejecting an application for grant of maintenance allowance. As far as the Deputy Collector, Jagir was concerned he had made up his mind to reject the application of the appellant by taking an erroneous view of law. He also cited R. R. D. 1957 page 201 in the case of Shri Budh Singh Mehta versus Mehta Chander Singh wherein it has been he d that a decision of the Jagir Commissioner with regard to maintenance allowance falls under sec. 32 of the Act which is appealable.

(2.) WE have considered the arguments advanced and perused the record as well as the ruling cited by the counsel for the appellant. This appeal has come up to-day for stay order, and the respondent with his counsel voluntarily presented himself before this Court to be heard before any order regarding stay could be made in this case. It was therefore, decided to hear that appeal on the ground of its maintainability or otherwise. The question before us is whether the present order of the Deputy Collector is under sec. 32 of the Jagirs Act or not, and whether the R. R. D. 1957 page 201 cited by the appellant has properly laid down the law on that point. Sec. 32 clearly lays down that while a Jagir Commissioner is determining the amount of compensation payable to the Jagirdar under sec. 26 he shall also decide the amount payable by way of maintenance allowance under sec. 27 of the Act to the relatives of the Jagirdar and the amount payable to other co-sharers under sec. 29, if any, of the jagirdar. He has also to decide whether there is any amount which is recoverable from the Jagirdar by way of state dues. He has to determine this amount provisionally first and then under sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 32 he has to make a final order. This clearly shows that a final order must contain all matters which were provisionally determined by the Jagir Commissioner as stated above. It is only that order which is final that is appealable under sec. 39 of the Act. The wordings of sec. 39 which enumerates the orders of the Jagir Commissioner and the Collector which are appealable before the Board of Revenue clearly shows that only sub-sec. 2 of sec. 32 is appealable before the Board of Revenue. It is unfortunate that the Deputy Collector, Jagir has passed a final order rejecting the appellant's application for maintenance allowance without passing a final award and incorporating the order of rejection of the application for maintenance allowance in that order. The plain meaning of sec. 39 of the Act is that only the appeal lies against the final order passed under sec. 32 (2 ).