YOGESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir Alwar dated 13. 11. 61 whereby he calculated the compensation of the Jagirdar on the basis of Rs. 768. 89 as the rental income. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the jagir was resumed in Smt. year 2014 which means the basic year was Smt. 2013. It is claimed that the jagirdar was in receipt of a fixed sum of Rs. 1800/- as rent since Smt. 2003. Ex. P. 1 (Thekanama) Ex. P. 2 (Mutation order) have been produced in support of this contention. Reliance was also placed on the order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 22. 10. 60. According to this order the theka with pala poola was for Rs. 1800/ -. Without pala-poola the theka was for Rs. 1200/-in Smt. year 2014. It is further stated therein that according to the patwari the muafidar was in receipt of Rs. 1100/- per year while Rs. 500/- was the rent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Deputy Collector, Jagir has relied upon the verification made by the Jagir Inspector (page 10 ). THIS is not in accordance with the law as Jagir Inspector cannot be deemed to be an authority for this purpose. According to him the jagirdar is entitled to claim three times the land revenue. His contention is that according to the statement of the patwari the land revenue was Rs. 550/- and not Rs. 500/- as stated by the Tehsildar in the order referred to above. He bases his claim on sec. 98 of Chapter IX of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He further contends that the tribute too was realised on the basis of Rs. 1100/ -.

(2.) IN reply, the learned Government Advocate concedes that the verification by the Jagir INspector has no value. His stand is that a similar issue came up for consideration before a full bench of the Board in Shiv Narain vs. State of Rajasthan (1966 RRD p. 54 ). It was held therein that where the rental income is an agreed income between the land holder and the tenant it should always be accepted and in such a case income need not be calculated under the provisions contained in secs. 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. If, however, any such estate holder entered into an agreement with a tenant for rent in excess of and contrary to the provisions contained in the Tenancy Act, such an agreement would be illegal and it would not be enforceable in law, nor can such agreed rent be made the basis of the calculation of the rental income of the jagirdar for the purpose of the payment of compensation. IN the case of those jagirs which were resumed prior to the enforcement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the basic year of which falls earlier than the aforesaid Act there is no alternative but to accept those rents which were agreed to or settled between the jagirdar and the tenant under the then existing tenancy law. He has no objection if the income of the jagirdar is redetermined in the light of the above authority. This view must hold good. The legal position has been set out in the above authority and it is but appropriate that the income should be determined in accordance with the same.