PANDIT CHANDRA KANT RAO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOOJA Member This is an appeal against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 24. 2. 64. The brief facts of the case are that a sum of Rs. 67,455/12 was deducted from the compensation of the appellant Shri Chandra Kant Rao who is the ex-jagirdar. of erstwhile jagir of Sarol District Jhalawar by the Jagir Commissioner in compliance of Form No. 10 as envisaged in Rule 37-C (4) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954. The jagirdar protested against the deduction of the full amount from his compensation claim on 28. 3. 60 in view of the 'rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Reduction Act, 1956. On this petition, the Jagir Commissioner ordered on 30. 8. 60 that in view of the provision of Rule 87 (c) (4) it was not within his competence to amend the certificate in form No. 10. The Jagirdar, therefore, approached the Finance Department, but no relief was granted by them. Thereupon the Jagirdar filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court accepted the writ petition and set aside the order of the Jagir Commissioner and directed him to entertain the representation of the petitioner and to determine what amount was recoverable from the petitioner under sec. 22 (l) (e) of the Act and how it should be adjusted vide their order dated 5. 9. 62 reported as RLW 1963 page 111. Accordingly, the Jagir Commissioner proceeded to examine the case in compliance of the above order of the High Court but came to the conclusion that the Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act, 1956 empowers only a Court to reduce the amount due in accordance with the formula given in Schedule I of that Act and that reduction can be effected only through a decree as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, vide bis order dated 24. 2. 64. He further observed that the benefit envisaged in the Act relates only to private suits and is not applicable to public debts. Keeping in view the limited scope of the judicial work entrusted to the Jagir Commissioner under the provisions of the Jagir Act, he rejected the petition of the Jagirdar appellant.

(2.) HAVING felt aggrieved by the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 24. 2. 64, the jagirdar has come up in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Jagir Commissioner should have acted in accordance with the direction of the High Court dated 5. 9. 62. He has urged that the Jagir Commissioner had erred in holding that he is not a 'court'. He has further argued that under sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act has been barred. Hence, the Civil Courts cannot decide the issue involved in this case and the Jagir Commissioner in refusing to act on the ground that he is not a 'court' has barred a remedy which was open to him to enforce his right despite the clear orders of the High Court referred to above.

(3.) IN view of this! difference, the case has been forwarded to me for majority opinion. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and the State. The main point for consideration is whether the Jagir Commissioner would be a Court competent to proceed as per provisions of sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Reduction Act, and also whether he could grant relief as per provisions of sec. 8 ibid. Sec. 3 only authorised the Court for proceeding in the manner prescribed therein. That the Jagir Commissioner is not a Court does not admit of any doubt. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Harinagar Sugar Mills vs. Shyam Sunder (A. I. R. 1961 Supreme Court 1669) made the following distinction between 'courts' and 'tribunals' : "all tribunals are not Courts, though all Courts are tribunals. The word "courts" is used to designate those tribunals which are set up in an organised State for the administration of justice. By administration of justice is meant the exercise of judicial power of the State, to maintain and uphold rights and to punish "wrongs". Whenever there is an infringement of a right or an injury the Courts are there to restore the vinculum juris, which is disturbed. " "with the growth of civilisation and the problems of modern life, a large number of administrative tribunals have come into existence. These tribunals have the authority of law to pronounce upon valuable rights; they act in a judicial manner and even on evidence on bath, but they are not part of the ordinary Courts of Civil Judicature. They share the exercise of the judicial power of the State, but they are brought into existence to implement controversies arising out of some administrative law. They are very similar to Courts, but are not Courts. "