KANWAR RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which have given rise to this appeal against an order of the learned Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan, dated 9. 4. 57 may briefly be stated as below.

(2.) IT appears that on the resumption of his estate, the appellant claimed Bakharsagar tank situated in village Gangrar as his personal and private property under sec. 23 (i) (d)s Certain cultivators represented by Bansilal the respondent filed objections and urged that as this tank had ever since been used for purposes of irrigating their fields, it could not be claimed by the Jagirdar as his personal and private property and should, therefore, be declared as khalsa. The Jagir Commissioner got an enquiry made in this matter by the Collector, Chittorgarh. The learned Collector, after an enquiry, observed that the disputed tank was used for purposes off irrigating some fields of the tenants and, therefore, it could not be included in the personal and private property of the jagirdar. but his rights to cultivate its bed as and when it becomes dry be recognised. The learned Jagir Commissioner accepted this recommendation of the learned Collector and held that as the tank was used for irrigation purposes, it should be treated as a State property and the jagirdar be allowed to cultivate its bed as far as possible. Against this order, the jagirdar has come in appeal before us under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, under rule 23 of the rules framed under the Act, an enquiry of this nature could be made only on receipt of a reference by the Jagir Commissioner or an officer duly appointed by him in this behalf. IT was urged that as in the present case, no such reference was made by the officer who took over charge of the appellant's estate, the present proceedings were without jurisdiction. IT was also pointed out that the rules did not contemplate any inquiry of this nature at the instance of the cultivators or any other person. On merits, it was urged that there was no evidence to effect that the land of some of the tenants was irrigated from this tank and therefore, the lower court had no authority in law in view of sec. 23 (i) (d) to order the resumption of the tank. The learned Government advocate contended that an enquiry of this nature could be held either on a reference made by the officer who took over charge of the property or suo moto by the Jagir Commissioner as well as on a report by any inhabitants of the locality in which the property in dispute was situated He drew our attention to rules 23 and 26 of the Rules. Rule 23 lays down that an enquiry of this nature could be initiated either on receipt of a reference by the officer taking over the property or by the Jagir Commissioner himself on his own motion. Rule 26 further lays down that if any inhabitants of the locality in which the property in dispute is situated are in any manner interested therein, they may contest the claim of the Jagirdar in respect thereof The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the Jagirs Commissioner had no jurisdiction in the matter is, therefore, ruled out. As regards the evidence, we have ourselves looked into the statement of the Patwari as well as the Settlement Officer who were examined by the Collector alongwith the documentary evidence on file. These witnesses have clearly stated that the water of this tank was used for purposes of irrigating certain fields and that the assessment made at the time of the revision of settlement was also made on this basis The appellant has not been able to controvert these facts On the basis of such a convincing and overwhelming evidence, we are fully satisfied that this tank has ever since been used for the purpose of irrigating some fields. Shri Bansilal, who had been contesting these proceedings on behalf of the cultivators also confirmed this fact, In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the decision given by the learned Jagir Commissioner is perfectly correct and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and uphold the order given by the lower court. .