STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LAHAR KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the State of Rajasthan against ten respondents, including the Board of Revenue, challenging the decision of the Board of Revenue dated April 23, 1965 in nine jagir appeals by its consolidated order.

(2.) THE facts which, it is necessary to notice for of the disposal of this petition are briefly these - In regard to Barmer jagir, nine persons who are in the line of Sumelsingh, had shares in the said jagir. THE jagir was resumed under Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter called "the Act") on September 12, 1956, and the claims for compensation by the respondents were filed in 1960. Amongst other items, the claimants made a demand for compensation for the income arising out of mineral products. THE Deputy Collector, jagir, Barmer, passed a common compensation award on March 13, '64 and allowed compensation for mineral products. THE State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal which was dismissed. A second appeal was taken before the Board of Revenue and the question raised before the Board was that Rule 37 (b) of the Rules framed under the Act was not complied with inasmuch as no Gazetted Officer of Mining Department was called upon to inspect the area for checking the figures of the income claimed by jagirdars or to submit a report with respect to the income arising from mines and quarries. THE learned Members of the Board of Revenue held that provisions of Rule 37 (b) were merely directory It is this order of the Board of Revenue which is sought to be challenged by the present writ petition on the ground that the jagirdars had no mineral rights and, therefore, no compensation could be granted to these jagirdars in respect of income from mines and quarries. THE writ petition in the instant case was presented on March 21, 1967. It has now come up for hearing before us after a lapse of about seven years. We are told that a reply has been filed by the respondents today. We unhesitatingly decline to take that into consideration for the reason that it has been filed near about seven years after the presentation of the writ petition. We cannot congratulate the respondents on their speed.

(3.) NO other point has been pressed before us.