THAKUR AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Jagirdar Sardargarh against a decision of the Jagir Commissioner Rajasthan, dated 15. 5. 1957 in a case under sec. 23 (2) of the Act.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the case was not referred to the Jagir Commissioner within the meaning of sec. 23 (2) of the Act and hence he had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the case. Reliance has been placed in this connection upon Rule 22 (3) Of therules framed under the Act. As much stress was laid by Shri Jivan Singh Chordia upon this aspect of the case we may refer to this matter in some detail. Chapter V of the Rules relates to the resumption of Jagir lands. Rule 21 deals with taking over charge of resumed Jagir, It is provided therein that on the date finally appointed for resumption of a Jagir under sec. 21 the Collector shall inform the Jagirdar of the resumption of his Jagir and request him to hand over charge of his Revenue Records and school and Hospital buildings. If the Jagirdar does not agree to hand the charge the Collector may take over charge by proclaiming the Same through beat of drum. Rule 22 relates to submission of list of personal properties by a Jagirdar. It lays down that the Jagirdar shall submit to the officer taking over such charge a list of properties which he claims under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 23 of the Act to be his private and personal properties. If such officer is of opinion that any item of property specified in the list submitted to him is not the property which the Jagirdar is entitled to hold he shall record the reasons for such opinion and refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 23 of the Act. In the present case it is evident that the Jagirdar submitted no list of personal property at the time of the resumption of bis Jagir or at the time when the charge of the Jagir was taken over by the Collector, (The Jagir was resumed on 23. 8. 1954 and a list of the (1) personal properties is alleged to have been presented by the Jagirdar on 8. 9. 1956 ). The contention is that the Collector made no reference as laid down in the aforesaid Rules and hence the Jagir Commissioner cannot have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Evidently this argument is a fallacious one. Sec. 23 (2) lays down that if any question arises whether any property is of the nature referred to in sub-sec. it shall be referred to the Jagir Commissioner who may after holding the prescribed enquiry make such order thereon as he decors fit. To appreciate the true nature of the contents of this section we may refer to section 46 of the Act. It provides that no civil or revenue court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act. Hence if any question arises as to whether any property is of the nature referred to in sec. 13 (1) or not it shall be referred to the Jagir Commissioner who alone can decide the same. Rule 23 (3) no doubt relates to an instance where this question can arise and evidently this Rule will have reference to that category of instances alone, i. e. where the officer taking over charge of the Jagir entertains doubt as regards the nature of any item of property specified in the list. In that case he is directed by the Rule to make a reference to the Jagir Commissioner. Evidently there may be cases of other nature also where the question can arise and naturally there can be no question of a reference being made under Rule 22 (3) to the Jagir Commissioner. It can be referred to the Jagir Commissioner in any other manner. The Rules 22 and 23 relate to one type of cases and there is nothing in the Rules or in the Act that may raise an inference that this is the only or exclusive manner of reference. To give effect to the clear intentions of the section it must be held that wherever any question of the nature laid down in sec. 23 (1) of the Act arises it may be referred to the Jagir Commissioner. The present case provides an instance of this type. The cultivators who were getting irrigation facilities from Manohar Sagar Tank made some representations to the Government as regards their rights and the dispute arose in that connection and not upon a list of private properties submitted by the Jagirdar as the list was no doubt submitted by him but was long after the dispute arose. The objection is therefore, overruled.