STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAO RAJA SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, which has been filed by the State of Rajasthan, concerns the legality of certain recovery proceedings started by Tehsildar, Aligarh, against respondent No. 1 Rao Raja Sardar Singh, ex Jagirdar of Uniara for realisation of State dues amounting to Rs. 5,94,215. 30 P. The petitioner State questions the validity of the order of the Revenue Board Ex. 4 setting aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 22-12-61. The State has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order. The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are briefly these :

(2.) RAO Raja Sardar Singh was the Jagirdar of Uniara in the former Jaipur State. According to the petitioner there were outstandings to the tune of Rs. 22,93,000/- and against the Jagirdar of Uniara in the year 1936. The Jagirdar too had put in certain claims against the ex Jaipur State to the tune of Rs. 1,37,000/- on account of what is called 'chitha' allowance and for 'par-varish' on the occasion of marriages in the 'thikana'. These claims came to be settled by the Council of Ministers of the former Jaipur State and it is stated that by Council resolution No. 6 of 1-7-1936 the liability of the Jagirdar was fixed at Rs. 5,54,226. 84 P. payable by yearly instalments of Rs. 15,000/- each for first twenty years and the remaining amount to be paid Rs. 10,000/- a year. It was provided that in case of default interest was to be charged at the usual rate. This settlement is alleged to have been made with the agreement of the Jagirdar. The Jagir of Uniara like other Jagirs in Rajasthan came to be resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. VI of 1952) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). The Jagir Commissioner then took up the question of determining the compensation payable to the Jagirdar on account of resumption of his Jagir lands. During the pendency of these proceedings before the Jagir Commissioner the Government lodged a claim for the recovery of the amount due under the Council resolution and for this a certificate in form No. 10 under Rs. 37 (C) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules, 1954, was sent to the Jagir Commissiner by the Collector, Tonk. The Jagirdar opposed this claim on several grounds and urged that as no account had been furnished by the State Government regarding dues to be deducted from the compensation payable to him, the claim should not be entertained. There was then some triangular correspondence between the Jagir Commissioner and the Collector, Tonk, and the Government, but eventually, while deciding the case for compensation, the Jagir Commissioner declined to deduct the amount claimed by the Government saying that inspite of being asked more than once the Government had failed to furnish the accounts of the outstandings. It appears that this order was passed by the Jagir Commissioner on 14-2-61 and it is Ex. P. 3 on the record. It transpires that the Government went up in appeal to the Revenue Board, but the Revenue Board dismissed the State Appeal by its order dated 15-10-63. Soon after the decision of the Jagir Commissioner, but before the disposal of the appeal filed by the State under sec. 39 of the Act, Tehsildar, Aligarh, issued a demand notice against the Jagirdar under sec. 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 on 3-11-61. There was some mistake in the notice of demand and the Tehsildar consequently corrected it and issued a revised demand on 22-12-61. As the Jagirdar did not comply with this demand the Tehsildar proceeded to attach the property of the Jagirdar under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Aggrieved of the action of the Tehsildar, the Jagirdar went up in revision to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue accepted the revision and quashed the proceedings taken by the Tehsildar in the matter. The Board observed that the State had taken proceedings against the Jagirdar under R. 37 (C) of the Rajasthan Land Reform and Resumption of Jagirs Rules and as the State failed to furnish the necessary accounts to the Jagir Commissioner as demanded by the latter, the Jagir Commissioner had refused to deduct this amount from the compensation payable to the Jagirdar. This order of the Jagir Commissioner, according to the Board, having become final the State was not entitled to resort to the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1959. The Board relied on the provisions of Sec. 46 of the Act for holding that in view of the decision of the Jagir Commissioner other proceedings were barred. The Board also observed that the proceedings could not have been initiated by the Tehsildar in the manner he did, as the Tehsildar had not complied with the provisions of Sec. 257a of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Board also referred to some other irregularities committed by the Tehsildar. It is this order of the Board dated 13-1-1964 that is impugned before us in the present writ petition. It was also mentioned in the writ petition that the State would be taking separate proceedings to question the order of the Jagir Commissioner declining to deduct the amount from the compensation payable to the Jagirdar; but nothing appears to have been done in this connection besides the appeal to the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed long before the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) LASTLY, we may add a word about one more contention of the learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that unlike the jagirdar the State was not required to file its claim for dues recoverable from the jagirdar. When his attention was invited to rule 37-C itself in this behalf which made it obligatory for the authority concerned to send a certificate in Form No. 10 furnishing the details of the dues etc. outstanding on the date of the certificate, he argued that the whole of rule 37-C was bad. We may point out that in Chandra Kant Rao's case (1) only sub-rule (4) of this rule was struck down because it was found to be repugnant to sec. 32 of the Act. The same thing cannot be said regarding sub-rule (3) of rule 37-C. To our mind it was open to the rule making authority to make provision for matters which were not provided in the Act, but which are designed to carry out the purposes of the Act. Sub-rule (3) is not shown to be repugnant to any provision of the Act. Thus the position is that both the jagirdar and the State Government have to present their points of view about the State dues recoverable from the Jagirdar and this is a matter which Is required to be determined by the Jagir Commissioner. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Board was not unjustified in quashing the proceedings taken by the Tehsildar for the recovery of the State dues under sec. 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956.