SHRIMATI TARA DEVI Vs. SHRINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 against the order of the learned Collector, Jaipur, dated 28. 9. 56.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record of the case. It appears that Shri Madan Lal, one of the respondents, filed an application before the Deputy Collector Jagir on 1. 12. 55 alleging that he was the adopted son of Shri Badri Narain, Jagirdar of village Dabach, who died on 11. 4. 55 and whose estate was resumed on 29 10-54 during his life time ; and that he being the legal heir of the deceased was entitled to compensation for the Jagir held by his adoptive father. Shri Nath, the other respondent, son of Kalyan Baksh, filed objection on 7. 2. 56 alleging the Madan Lal was not the adopted son of the deceased ; and that Shri Nath, Madanlal and Gopal Narain being his nearest reversioners were entitled to get compensation proportionately in respect of the estate left by the deceased. It also transpired during the course of the proceedings that the deceased Badri Narain had also left a widow. The learned Deputy Collector Jagir, after recording the evidence of the parties, observed that as succession was in dispute the parties be directed to have their rights adjudicated upon by a competent civil court. Accordingly, he recommended the case to the learned Collector, Jaipur and suggested that if he so desired, the case may be heard by him. Thereupon, the learned Collector ordered that in view of the clear provisions of sec. 38 of the Act, he did not consider it necessary to give a hearing to any of the parties. Accordingly the recommendation of the Deputy Collector Jagir was accepted. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant who is the widow of the deceased jagirdar is that the learned Collector did not make any enquiries in the matter in accordance with the provisions of rule 42-A of the rules framed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. It was specifically pointed out that in accordance with this rule, it was incumbent on the learned Collector to issue a notice calling upon all persons claiming to be heir or heirs of the deceased jagirdar to appear and prove their claims before him on a date and at a time and place specified in the notice; that such notice was to be served upon all persons appearing to be entitled to payment of the whole or any part of the unpaid compensation that was to be paid to the deceased jagirdar and shall also be published in the Rajasthan Gazette. It was also pointed out that the learned Collector could not give any order in the matter without any such persons as may appear before him on the date and the time fixed for the hearing. In the case before us, the widow of the deceased was admittedly one of the heirs of the deceased and she was not given any notice to contest her claim. As a result of this she could not file a claim as heir of her husband. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the impugned order of the Collector was passed without following the procedure laid down for holding inquiries in such matters, it should be vacated. The learned counsel for the respondents also conceded that besides ignoring the procedure the learned Collector did not even give an opportunity to the contesting parties to put up their case to him. WE find that these contentions must prevail. The order given by the learned Collector refusing to hear even the respondents who bad been fighting their claims before the Deputy Collector Jagir militates against the procedure laid down in the rules and offends the principle of natural justice. It cannot, therefore, be supported. It is true that if succession is disputed by several persons, proper direction in the matter can be given that the contestants should get their rights decided by a competent civil court under sec. 38 of the Act but such a direction should, as a rule, be given only after the procedure laid down in rule 42-A of the rules referred to above has been followed. This being so, the order given by the learned Collector cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the case is sent back to the Collector for disposing it of in accordance with the provisions of law. .