NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the Jagirdar seeks to attack the order of the learned Deputy Collector Jagir, Pali, dated 29. 1. 64 with regard to the compensation award for his jagir, Tawali Kalan. Mainly, there are three grounds of appeal. The Deputy Collector Jagir has assessed the rental income of the Jagir according to the settlement of Smt. year 2011, assuming that the Jagir was resumed on 12. 9. 56 and the settlement Parchas had been distributed on 10. 2. 56.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the Jagirdar is that the Jagir was actually resumed on 29. 10. 54 (Page 9 of the file) and the charge was taken by the Govt. on 24. 5. 55 (the letter from the Deputy Collector Jagir to the Revenue Secretary at Page 10 indicates the date of taking over as 14. 5. 55 ). It transpires that subsequently another notice was again received by the Jagirdar for the resumption of this Jagir when the Govt. decided to resume the Jagirs having an annual rental income of Rs. 1,000/- or above. On receipt of this notice, the Jagirdar reported that his Jagir had already been resumed and the Patwari was recovering the Bigori. THE Tehsildar reported accordingly vide his letter dated 24. 10. 56 (Page 19 of the file ). THEreupon, the Deputy Collector Jagir ordered that the second notice had been issued under a misunderstanding. THE same was, therefore, directed to be cancelled and the Jagir was deemed to have been resumed on 29. 10. 54. This letter of the Deputy Collector Jagir is dated 16/20. 11. 56 and may be found at Page 20 of the file. THE Jagirdar claims that the Jagir having thus been resumed on 29. 10. 54, he is entitled to compensation on the basis of the rental income assessed according to the settlement of St, year 1999. THE Deputy Collector, Jagir, has not accepted this contention and has allowed him rental income on the basis of the settlement of St. year 2011. One of the grounds taken by him is that the period of settlement of the earlier settlement was 10 years which expired in Smt. year 2008 and the second settlement had been commenced before the expiry of the period of the first settlement. It was, therefore, not correct to assess the income on the basis of the earlier settlement.

(3.) THE third point raised by the learned counsel for the Jagirdar is in respect of the deductions. It is stated that the Jagirdar had challenged the deductions proposed to be made through form 10. THE Deputy Collector Jagir, however, held no enquiry as he was bound to do in view of the rule laid down in Chandra Kant Rao vs. State of Rajasthan (1963 RLW 111 ). It has been argued that if the date of resumption is held to be 29. 10. 54, the basic year will be St. year 2010 and the deductions which relates to St. years 2012 and 2013 will become untenable. This argument has not been controverted by the learned Government Advocate. We are, therefore, inclined to accept this appeal so far as this ground is concerned.