MADAN KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HERE is a woeful story of the widow of an Ex -Jagirdar, who has been deprived of compensation or rehabilitation grant under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 (for short 'the Validation Act') since the enforcement of the Acts and her case has been tossed form one end to the other in the Revenue courts.

(2.) THE facts need not be narrated in details as they have been mentioned in full, in the order Ex. 4 passed on May 15, 1961 by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. Ajmer. The petitioner's father -in -law Prem Singh owned 1/2 share in the Jagir of Nenau district Nagaur. The petitioner's husband Padam Singh passed away during the life -time of Prem Singh. In his life -time the petitioner adopted Asu Singh as his son with the consent of her father -in -law. Prem Singh also passed away on May 15, 1954. Asu Singh applied for succession as Jagirdar. Mean -time, the Act came into force. Asu Singh also passed away on June 17, 1955. Asu Singh was unmarried. During his life -time, Asu Singh had applied for succession to the Jagir and objections were invited against the claim filed by him. Proceedings went on and the Collector, Nagaur made a recommendation for the payment of maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her mother -in -law, that is, the widow of Prem Singh. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, by its judgment Ex. 4 dated June 5, 1961 set -aside the order of the Collector and directed him to decide the case in accordance with the provisions of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949, the Act and the Validation Act. The matter lingered on. By order Ex. 6 dated November 30, 1978, the Additional Collector Nagaur held that the petitioner was the only lawful heir of her son Asu Singh and she, therefore, should be declared as his sole heir. He, therefore, made a recommendation for the aforesaid purpose. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur agreed with the recommendation and referred the matter for approval to the Board of Revenue. A Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by the impuged order Ex. 7 dated February 4, 1985, again, remanded the case to the Additional Collector to re -examine the matter, keeping in view Section 172 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949.

(3.) WE may state at once that the matter of maintenance wss already decided by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue by their order Ex. 4 dated May 15, 1961. By the impugned order Ex. 7 dated February 4, 1985, the learned Members re -opened the question of maintenance and succession. It could not have been done in view of the earlier judgment Ex. 4 dated May 15, 1961 The impugned order Ex. 7 is, thus contradictory since it re -opened the entire case decided earlier by the Board of Revenue by the order Ex. 4. The Additional Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority, in compliance with the direction issued in Ex. 4 held that the petitioner was the rightful heir, being the mother of Asu Singh the last Ex -Jagirdar. They made a recommendation for recognizing her as the heir of Asu Singh. It appears that the earlier order Ex. 4 dated May 15, 1961 was not brought to the notice of the learned Members of the Board of Revenue, who passed the impugned order Ex. 7 on February 4, 1985. The learned Members of the Board of Revenue were not justified in re -opening the matter which was decided finally on May 15, 1961 by the order Ex. 4. The learned Members of the Board were required to decide whether the petitioner should be taken to be the rightful heir of the deceased Asu Singh the last holder of the Jagir.