HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE ten appeals have been filed against the final award given by the Additional Jagir Commissioner on 26th October, 1961 in the matter of compensation payable in respect of Jagir Biagrala, Tehsil Desuri, which was resumed on 15th August, 1954. The learned counsel for the appellants has frankly conceded that these appeals are barred by limitation. He has, however, prayed that we should intervene in exercise of our general power of superintendence and control over revenue courts and officers. He has cited Sections 9 and 23 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 whereby this Board has been invested with the power of general superintendence and control over all revenue courts and all revenue officers. The learned counsel concedes that the Additional Jagir Commissioner is not a revenue court. But he insists' that this functionary is a revenue officer. The expression "revenue officer" has been defined in sec. 5 (36) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 as any officer "employed in the business of revenue and rent or in maintaining revenue records. " The various types of revenue officers have been listed in secs. 17 to 21 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Jagir Commissioner or the Additional Jagir Commissioner does not find place in these provisions. The learned counsel for the appellants concedes that there is no provision in the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 under which the Additional Jagir Commissioner or the Jagir Commissioner has been defined as a revenue officer. But he says that since the Jagir Commissioner or the Additional Jagir Commissioner has to decide which is the Khudkasht land of the jagirdar, both of these functionaries must be construed to be revenue officers. We see no force in this argument. It is clear from the scheme of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act that the power of superintendence and control over revenue officers can be exercised by the Board only in respect of the revenue officers listed as such in that Act. Even if it is conceded that the enumeration of the revenue officers in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is not exhaustive, the functions of the Jagir Commissioner or the Additional Jagir Commissioner do not attract the definition of "revenue officers" given in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (Sec. 5 (36) ). The Jagir Commissioner or the Additional Jagir Commissioner is an officer employed only for the purpose mentioned in the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. He is not employed either in the "business of revenue and rent or in maintaining revenue records. " In sum, the position is that the Jagir Commissioner or the Additional Jagir Commissioner is not a revenue officer over whom the Board exercise the power of superintendence and control under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Therefore, these appeals as well as the alternative prayer for intervention under sec. 9 and 23 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act deserve to be rejected. We order accordingly. .