BAJRANG SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one bairang Singh, erstwhile Jagirdar of Harpura, District Aimer.

(2.) HIS Jagir was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act, 1952 (which with hereinafter be referred to as the Act ). The question of compensation to be given to him was decided by the Deputy Collector (Jagir), ajmer on 30th August, 1958. The Deputy Collector (Jagir) communicated this decision to the Government under Section 33 of the Act and it reached the government on 3rd of October, 1958. The Government of Rajasthan preferred an appeal against the said decision under Section 39 of the Act and that appeal was filed on 1st December, 1958 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. When the appeal came up for hearing, it was urged by the petitioner, who was respondent in that appeal, that the appeal was time barred. It was pointed out that under Rule 39 of the Act 90 days time was provided for filing an appeal from the date of the decision, but it was tiled two days alter the expiry of that period. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be dismissed as time barred. This argument prevailed with the learned Members of the Board and they dismissed the appeal on 28th January, 1960. The Government of Rajasthan then preferred a review petition in the same court, it was urged that the last date of hearing before the Deputy Collector (Jagir) was 16th June, 1958 and thereafter the case was adjourned without giving another date. The decision was pronounced by the deputy Collector (Jagir) on 30th August, 1958. None of the parties was present on that date because they were not informed about it. On the basis of these facts it was contanded that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 39 of the Act should have been computed from 3rd October, 1958 when the appellant was informed of the decision. It was prayed that since these facts escaped the notice of the learned Members of the Revenue Board, who dismissed the appeal, that decision should be set aside. The learned Members of the Board accepted this argument, allowed the review application and set aside their previous order regarding the dismissal of the appeal. It is against this order dated 1st April, 1961 that the present writ application is directed.

(3.) IN reply, it is urged by learned Deputy Government Advocate that Section 33 of the Act cast a duty on the Jagir Commissioner to communicate his final order as soon as practicable to the Government, the Jagirdar and every other interested person, that the Deputy Collector (Jagir) had communicated his decision to the government under this Section on 3rd October, 1958 and, therefore, the Board of revenue had rightly allowed the review petition. It would be proper to reproduce here the provisions of Sections 33 and 39 of the act on which reliance is placed by learned counsel on either side: