RAO BHAGWAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application filed against the order of the Collector, Tonk, dated 29-7-1964. The facts in brief are that the applicant Bhagwat Singh is a jagirdar of Duni which was resumed on 1-8-1955. The jagir consisted of 31 villages, 26 were located, in district Tonk and 5 in Jaipur. The final award was made on 4-10-1962 on a revenue income of Rs. 1,60,253,71. Government dues as stated in Form 10 amounting to Rs. 2,41,876. 55 were deducted- The maintenance holders got Rs. 3,71,500, and indent for bonds for Rs. 1,50,746/- was issued. These bonds were, however attached by the Collector Tonk. On a previous application filed in the Board of Revenue, it was ordered that bonds worth Rs. 50,000/- my be released if the applicant furnished necessary security. After the arguments in this revision had been heard, the applicant filed an application that even these bonds worth Rs. 50,000/-have not been released. Separate action has been ordered on that application. THIS revision is concerned only with the order of the Collector dated 29-7-1964, where under he had refused to hear objections raised by the applicant regarding the attachment of his bonds for satisfaction of the dues of the District Board. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that the dues against the jagir could only by recovered by the Jagir Commissioner and are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Revenue court. Under Section 34 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, only the amounts recoverable from a Jagirdar under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 22 and those determined in an order made under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall be deducted from the compensation payable to him. Under Section 22 (1) (e) all arrears of revenue, cesses or other dues in respect of any jagir land due from the Jagirdar for any period prior to the date of resumption including any sum due from him under clause (d) and all loans advanced by the Government or the Court of Wards to the Jagirdar are recoverable from his compensation. It is obvious that the Jagir Commissioner could not deduct dues of the District Board from the compensation payable to the jagirdar. But that would not mean that any right of recovery of the dues against the jagirdar lapsed. Any dues against the jagirdar not recoverable under Section 22 (1) (c) or 32 (2) would be obviously recoverable under any law for the time being in force. If they are recoverable under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the jurisdiction of the revenue courts would obviously not be excluded. Similarly, the dues which accrue after the resumption of the jagir would be recoverable under any law for the time being in force.

(2.) UNDER Section 70 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, which came into force on the 10th September, 1950, the assets of the District Board devolved on the Government. A notification was issued on the 10th September, 1959 transferring the assets of the District Board in the present case to the Collector, Tonic, who thereupon ordered that these dues were recoverable under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the procedure as laid down in Section 257-A would have to be followed. He accordingly refused to consider the objections raised against withholding the issue of the bonds unless the amount of the dues was deposited in protest as laid down under sec. 257-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.