APJI AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under sec. 39 of the Raj. Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed against an order of the Jagir Commissioner, dated 27-2*58, finally determining the compensation and rehabilitation grant of the appellant under sec. 32 (2) of the Act.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments to two points only and we shall discuss them separately. THE first contention relates to the interpretation to be put up upon clause (h) para 2 of the Second Schedule of the Act. Para 2 lays down the various items which shall constitute the gross income of a jagir-dar and clause (h) relatesto the amount of compensation paid in cash by the Govern-ment to the jagirdar for taking over the excise administration and the production or manufacture of excisable articles in jagir lands calculated on the basis of average income of 3 years preceding the basic year. It is an admitted fact that during the 3 years preceding the basic year in this case, a sum of Rs. 5056/14/- was paid to the appellant. Out of this, Rs. 3,257/2/- related to the income accrued during the 3 years preceding the basic year & the residuary amount was in respect of the years previous to the 3 preceding years. THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as the entire amount was paid during the 3 preceding years it should be treated as being an item of the gross income. THE learned Government advocate has replied that as the income during the preceding 3 years was only Rs. 3,257/2/- payments on account of arrears for a previous period should be excluded while considering the gross income. To determine this point, clause (h) of para 2 is to be read in its entirety. It is not enough that an amount is paid during the 3 preceding years to bring it within this clause It is also necessary that this payment should be on account of the oasis of average income of 3 years preceding the basic years. If the intention of the legislature was to accept all the payments made within the 3 previous years as the basis for calculating gross income then words basis of average income would become superfluous. THE interpretation that should be put on this clause must take into account the essential ingredients clearly set out in the clause This would mean that the payments should be on account of the average income of the preceding 3 years. THE decision taken by the learned Jagir Commissioner is in conformity with this interpretation and calls for no interference. THE other contention relates to clause (h) of para 2 of the Second Schedule. This clause relates to the income from sale of culturable or Abadi land calculated on the basis of average income therefrom during the 20 years immediately preceding the basic year. THE dispute relates to the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 792/13/6 It is an admitted fact that this income accrued to the thikana on acco-unt of patta fees realised by the thikana and not the sale of land. THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as this income was incidental to and closely related with the sale of land, it should be included in the income of the thikana. THE learned Government advocate has replied that the law allows only the income from sale of land and not the income from patta fees. Looking to the express phraseology of the clause the interpretation sought to be put by the learned Government advocate would be perfectly correct. THE income from sale of land accruing to the thikana is evidently distinct from an income accruing to the Thikana when the land is sold by a private person to another person and the purchaser approaches the thikana for a patta which he considers to be necessary or as a piece of evidence for transaction. This income cannot, therefore, be confused with the income accruing to the Thikana from actual sales of land THE thikana may be drawing income from the patta fees but the law does not allow it to be considered under para 2 of the Second Schedule. THE learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to a circular of the Jagir Commissioner, dated 25. 7. 57 wherein such income is said to be permissible under the gross income. Much need not be said on the point. Any circular, letters or instructions of the Jagir Department inconsistent with the provisions of the Act cannot have any binding value. THE appeal is hereby rejected. .