RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Ranjeetsingh has filed this appeal against the award passed by the Additional Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 5. 4. 1961. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant's Jagir was resumed on 15. 8. 1954 as a settled jagir. THE appellant filed a claim for compensation of his resumed jagir on the basis of the settled rates then prevailing and claimed other income. It is stated that after the resumption the Government revised the settled rent rates of this jagir village vide their order dated 7. 7. 1956 and these rates were made applicable from Smt. year 2008. THE Jagir Commissioner by the impugned award assessed the rental income of the jagir at the revised rate to the appellant. But as regards the other income the Additional Jagir Commissioner made no changes in the previously assessed income when the case was remanded back to him; hence this appeal.

(2.) THE counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. His first contention was that this jagir at the time of resumption was a settled jagir and the income as entered in the record of right in the basic year should have been allowed to the appellant and not the revised or modified rent rates subsequently introduced. His second contention was that this case was remanded by the Board of Revenue for fresh orders with regard to other incomes. THE Addl, Jagir Commissioner without according any reason and without discussing the evidence on record merely upheld his previous order. In the first judgment the Addl. Jagir Commissioner wrongly attributed the matter to over-writing of the books of account by the appellant and applied the provisions of sec. 34 of the Evidence Act, which in view of the decision of the High Court in Dudu's case is not to be taken into account. He therefore, pleaded that the Addl. Jagir Commissioner be directed to pass fresh orders on proper appreciation of evidence with regard to other income. I now take up the first contention of the counsel for the appellant. THE counsel in support of his argument cited the following rulings: (1) Nanak Chand vs. Board of Revenue U. P. reported in R. D. 1955 page 165. (2) Gokaran Singh vs. Ranjeetsingh U. P. reported in R. D. 1955 page 314. (3) Amba Prasad vs. Mahboobali Shah reported in A. I. R. 1955 Supreme Court page 54. to support his contention that the Court could give statutory effect to the entry in the record of right on the relevant date and subsequent change will have no effect. THE reply given by the Government Advocate was that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rate Act 1955 came into force on 9. 4. 1955. It was revived by the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival Act 1956 which came into force from 20. 5. 1956) and by virtue of cl. 9 of the aforesaid Acts the Government was authorised to validate modified rent rates previously sanctioned and other connected matters and further directed that legality of these matters shall not be questioned. He further stated that the rules cited by the counsel for the appellant do not apply to the present case. Besides this jagir was settled and according to the definition of 'settled' as provided in the Jagir Act, the rent rates could be made applicable whether prospectively or retrospectively.