RANA TAKHATSINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that he was the ex -Rana of Wav in Gujarat, and that Wav was ceded to the Government of India on May 28, 1948. He has stated that he was the Jagirdar of Sarwana and Barwana villages of Sanchore Tehsil, but he relinquished his rights 'in village Sarwana to the former Jodhpur State against an yearly payment of Rs. 577/ - as income from the said village'. As regards Barwana, the petitioner has stated that he placed it under the management of the former Jodhpur State on condition that the State would look after his rights and render an account to him. The tribute for both the vilages was, according to the petitioner, paid by him and his ancestors to the Jodhpur State. The petitioner applied on August 27, 1963, for grant of compensation as his jagir was resumed under the Raiasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Jagir Commissioner asked him to substantiate his 'title' and ultimately decided by his order Annexure '2' dated June 20, 1966, that he was the jasirdar of the aforesaid villages. It was expressly stated by the Jagir Commissioner in that order that although village Sarwana was recorded as 'khalsa' in the settlement records, the claimant was entitled to receive compensation on an income of Rs. 577/ - paid by the Government. As regards Barwana, the Jagir Commissioner held that although it wasalso recorded as a 'khalsa' village in the settlement records, and not as a iagir village, the documents produced by the petitioner showed that both the villages were originally jagir villages which were managed by the State Government on Ms behalf and that the 'mere entry in, settlement record cannot debar the claimant to receive compensation'. The jagir Commissioner took the view that the settlement record 'only raises a presumption but a presumption cannot replace proof'. He therefore relied on order No. 3710/GIA dated August 27, 1937 of Superintendent Tribute and declared the villages as the jagir villages of the petitioner under Section 37 of the Act. The State preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue, and the Board's judgment dated February 1, 1968 is on record as Annexure 3. The learned Members of the Board have held that the aforesaid order of the Jagir Commissioner was without jurisdiction because he had decided a dispute regarding an entry in the settlement record without sending the case to the competent revenue Court. The petitioner feels aggrieved against the Board's decision, and has approached this Court for its correction by way of certiorari.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a reply in support of the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue.

(3.) AS Sub -section (1) of Section 37 of the Act refers, inter alia, to the question of khudkasht land, the learned counsel for the parties have invited our attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Aimer v. Rao Baldev Singh, AIR 1968 SC 898 where that question arose for consideration with reference to the provisions of Sections 23 and 37, in the context of Sections 46 and 47. Their Lordships have laid down the law as follows: - -