BASANT KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition, in brief are as follows - -The petitioner is the wife of Kanwar Amarsingh, the eldest son of Rawal Jorawarsingh of Jasol, one of the leading jagirdars of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur. Rawal Jorawarsingh was the holder of the jagir of Jasol on bhomichar tenure. The petitioner alleges that on 1 -8 -1933, her father -in -law by means of a patta bearing the seal of his thikana made a grant of village Sahu Lachhiramani in her favour and thereafter she was in enjoyment of the rents and profits there of upto the date of resumption, She further alleges that the grant was regularised by a formal deed dated 6 -11 -1951, which was registered on 17 -12 -1951. It appears that in the meanwhile, Rawal Jorawarsingh made a similar grant in favour of Smt. Jadav Kanwar, wife of one of his grand sons by a patta dated 14 -5 -1946.

(2.) The jagir of Jasol including the village Sahu Lachhiramani was resumed on 13.9.1956 by virtue of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. Sec. 16 of the Act cast a duty on the Govt. to pay compensation to every Jagirdar whose jagir lands were resumed under Sec. 21, Sec. 21 provides that every Jagirdar whose jagir land has been resumed under Sec. 21 shall, within two months from the date of the notification issued under that Sec. file, in the prescribed form, a statement of claim for compensation before the Jagir Commissioner. The Jagir Department was, however, not prepared to pay compensation on the basis of unsettled income and, therefore, Rawal Jorawar Singh along with other jagirdars filed a; writ petition in the High Court which was allowed on 19.1.1959: See Pratap Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan [ILR (1959) 9 Raj. 413]. The High Court held that the compensation should be worked out on the basis of the income from the unsettled income.

(3.) On 14 -3 -1959, the ex -jagirdar Rawal Jorawarsingh the petitioner Smt. Basant kanwar and her six sons i.e. his grandsons, alongwith Smt. Jadav Kanwar, his grand daughter -in -law in whose layout be made similar grants filed their, statements of claim under Sec. 31 of the Act on the basis of unsettled income. 'Meanwhile, on 11.3.1959, the petitioner's husband Kanwar Amarsingh had filed an application to the Jagir Commissioner under Sec. 26A of the Act for recognition of the transfers. The Deputy Collector (Jagirs) Jodhpur, by his report dated 5.5.1959 recommended that the chhutbhaies i.e. grand -sons, should be recognised as sub -grantees and treated as independent jagirdars of their respective -villages. The Jagir Commissioner, however, by his order dated 30.6.1959 allowed the claim of the petitioner as well as of her sons. The Board of Revenue, by its order dated 11 -6 -1965 remitted the case to the Jagir Commissioner on the ground that he had failed to apply his mind to the claim preferred by the petitioner. The Board directed the Jagir Commissioner to examine her claim under -section 26A of the Act and to proceed further in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. On remand. the Jagir Commissioner held, on the basis of the rental income of village, Sahu Lachhiramani of Rs. 29 -1 -87 P & other income that is Rs. 12,737,15 P. was payable to the petitioners as compensation. The Board of Revenue, by its order dated 26.3.1969, allowed the appeal preferred by the State Government and held that the petitioner had failed to establish her claim.