DAMODARLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the appellant had held a reja muafi in village Sohawa, Tehsil Alwar consisting of 9 bighas. The land revenue of this biswedari village was, no doubt settled, but no rent between the biswedar and his tenant was ever settled. The Dy. Collector, Jagir, instead of allowing the rental income of Rs. 60/ - (chakota) in this jagir land allowed only Rs. 14.50, which was the land revenue assessed on his holding, as the rental income of his jagir. The counsel, therefore, urged that his jagir, though resumed on 1.3.1960, was clearly unsettled and the rental income should have been assessed under sec. 7 of the Jagir Act, on the basis of three relevant years rental income. In any case, the counsel for the appellant argued that, on the basis of the Full Bench decision in Shiv Narain vs. The State of Rajasthan in appeal No. 31 Bhilwara of 1962, his client was entitled to a fixed sum of money as the income accruing from rent in the basic year, which was Rs. 60/ - per annum.

(2.) The reply of the Government Advocate was that the term "settled" is defined in the Jagir Act, u/sec.2, sub -sec.(4) and where 3/4th of the village is settled, it should be considered as settled. The appellant was only entitled to the rental income, based on settled rate. In the alternative, if the benefit of the principle of law decided in Full Bench case of Shiv Narain vs. The State referred to above is to be given to the appellant, he should be paid rental income under sec. 99 of the Tenancy Act so that it should not exceed twice the amount payable by the tenant because the appellant could claim on the legal rent and not the rent actually paid by his tenant to him.

(3.) We have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and have perused the record. The jagir was resumed on 1.3.60. Therefore, the basic year of this jagir for purposes of the determination of the rental income was agricultural year 1959 -60. By that time, the Tenancy Act had already come into force and by virtue of the provisions made in Chapter IX of the aforesaid Act, it had fixed the maximum limits of rent, payable by a tenant to a land -holder, as legal rent. The question, therefore which remains to be decided is whether the jagir of the appellant was settled or not. It was, no doubt, resumed on 1.3.1960 and it is clear from the record that before the jagir was resumed, it was held in biswedari tenure and only land revenue payable to the State was settled. No rent was settled between the biswedar and the tenants. Under the term Settled" given in sec. 2 sub -sec. (n) of the Jagir Act, 1952, it is clear that a settled village means that village or area to which the rent rates determined during settlement operations have been made applicable whether prospectively or retrospectively. There is nothing on record to show that the settlement authorities had determined the rent rates for this jagir village in which the compensation has been claimed by the appellant. The only thing settled according to the record before us is the revenue payable by the appellant to the State, which of course, stood "assigned to him.