RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are cross appeals against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 28. 11. 62. The only contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the income of the village Parsakabas Distt. Alwar has been allowed on unsettled basis when the jagirdar himself has claimed income on the basis of settled rates in his claim form. We have perused the claim form in original in which the jagirdar has claimed the income of Rs. 1081/74 paise on the basis of settled rates. The contention of the learned counsel for the jagirdar is that the Jagir Commissioner having held the jagir to have been resumed on 23. 8. 54, the jagirdar was entitled to claim compensation on the basis of unsettled rates as at that time the Jagir was unsettled. This contention has been repelled by the learned Government Advocate by referring to the amended rule 9. The learned counsel for the Jagirdar made a feeble attempt to rebut this argument of the learned Government Advocate by stating that no laches as described in sec. 7 (3) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act could be ascribed to the jagirdar and therefore rule 9 was not attracted. This argument has no legs to stand upon, as is evident from the fact that the jagirdar did not make a mention of this jagir when he was called upon to file a statement under sec. 31 of the Jagir Act. In fact initially the jagirdar made no mention of this estate in his statement. This came to the notice of the Government only after 1. 7. 58. It is contended on behalf of the jagirdar that this jagir was actually resumed on 1-7 58 and the jagir Commissioner has no authority to revise the date of resumption. This again is a very feeble ground. Under the notification of August 23, 1954 all jagirs whether settled or unsettled falling in the categories mentioned therein stood resumed by the order of the Government. Although initially the two villages may have been separately allotted in jagirs by two separate rulers to the jagirdar yet it can not be gainsaid that they formed part of one estate, so far as the State of Rajasthan was concerned and the combined income of the two of them would naturally be greater than the income of one (Bakshpura) in regard to which the jagirdar filed a claim at that time. Thus the action of the Jagir Commissioner which lay in the domain of implementing the, Government orders cannot be subjected to any serious objection on this ground. The conduct of the jagirdar in not declaring the second village as part of his Jagir clearly brings him within the pale of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 7 and therefore would automatically attract the amended rule 9 whereby the jagirdar can claim compensation only on the basis of the settled rate if the settlement takes place before the claim is finalised. Under the circumstances, the appeal of the State is accepted and it is ordered that the income of Rs. 1081/74 paise only be allowed to the jagirdar. While arguing the appeal of Jagirdar the learned counsel for the jagirdar has stated that the recoveries of rent made by the jagirdar could not be deducted from the compensation directly but recovery, if any due, should have been done as per sec. 25 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. The learned Government Advocate has conceded this point. As such we accept the appeal of the jagirdar on this point.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the jagirdar has also argued that the learned Jagir Commissioner has erred in not scaling down the debt and dues according to the Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act. THE learned Government Advocate has conceded that this point should be examined by the Jagir Commissioner according to the provisions of Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act in the light of the rule laid down in Chandrakant Rao versus State of Rajasthan (RRD 1963 page 124 ).