BHOPAL SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Bhopal Singh against. the Rajasthan State and certain officers concerned, who are opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 for a direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus, and arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the petitioner is a pasaita jagirdar (holder of a jagir in lieu of certain services in the past) from thikana Kuchaman. The land held by him is situate in village Kuchaman and bears khasra Nos. 119, 120, 10, 18, 12, 16, 1,3, 134, 135, 139, 23 and 23/1. There is also no dispute before us that the income of the land held by the petitioner is Rs. 477/9/- per annum. The jagir of Kuchaman was resumed by the State some time ago under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (No. VI) of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act ). The case of the petitioner is that the State has so far resumed jagirs of the annual income of Rs. 1,000/- or above only and that his jagir is obviously outside the class of the jagirs notified to be resumed up to date. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of that, a demand for payment of bigodi amounting to Rs. 477/9/- plus a certain amount as interest has been served on him by the Tehsildar, Nawa, and the Collector, Nagaur (opposite parties Nos. 3 and 2 respectively) and his representation that such demand was illegal has been turned down. The contention of the petitioner is not that his jagir is irresumable, but that no notification for the resumption of jagirs below the income of Rs. 1000/- his so far been issued by the State under sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Act, and, therefore his jagir was not and cannot be resumed in the absence of such a notification and that the stand of the Collector and his subordinate officers that it was automatically resumed along with the jagir of Kuchaman is unconstitutional being in violation of the provisions of Art. 19 (f) of the Constitution taken with sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Act. Consequently, the petitioner prays for a suitable order restraining the opposite parties from resuming his land or giving effect to the so called resumption and recovering any bigodi or any other incidental charges with respect thereto on the footing last-mentioned.

(3.) WE accordingly allow this application and hereby restrain the opposite parties from giving effect to the order of resumption passed on the ground that the jagir in question was resumed along with the jagir of thikana Kuchaman. WE also restrain the opposite parties from recovering any bigodi from the petitioner. This order will of course not stand in the way of the State resuming the jagir according 10 law by a valid notification under sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Act. The petitioner will be entitled to receive his costs of this application from the State. .