JAGANNATH Vs. NIRANJANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appear under Sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act has been filed against an order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Jaipur dated 23-12 58 in a case presumably under Sec. 37. of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that Rao Hiralal was a State grant muaffidar of village Bidarka, Tehsil Lalsot, district Jaipur. He died in the year 1944 and Niranjanlal respondent applied for matmi on the ground that he had been adopted by the deceased Rao Hiralal during his life-time. Govind Narain who is now dead and is now represented by the appellants opposed the application of matmi of Niranjanlal and claimed matmi for himself as being the nearest collateral of the deceased. THE Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that matmi should be sanctioned in the name of Niranjanlal and accordingly he submitted his recommendation to the then Board of Revenue of the former Jaipur State. That Board of Revenue referred that matter to the Government of Jaipur for guidance in respect of rule (2) of rule' 14 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules. Before any decision could be taken by the Jaipur State Government, the United State of Rajasthan came into being and the Revenue Secretary, Rajasthan, returned the case to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan for deciding it according to its best light. A Full Bench of the Board, vide decision dated 14-7-51, held that as the adoption of Niranjanlal had been made by the deceased without obtaining the previous sanction of the Government it could not be recognised as valid under Rule 14 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules. THE Board also held that even before the enforcement of these Rules it was necessary for a State grantee to obtain prior sanction of the Government for adoption according to the practice and usage of that period. THE Board accordingly sanctioned the matmi in the name of Govind Narain. THE respondent went up in appeal to the Revenue Secretary who by his decision dated 26/27 June, 1952 rejected the same and upheld the order of the Board. A review petition was also filed but that was also dismissed on 17th November, 1952. THEreafter a writ petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. It was argued that the Board had exceeded the power conferred upon it by Rule 26 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules and all that the Board of Revenue could do was to make recommendation to the Government for passing of final order. It was also argued the Board had committed an obvious error by applying Rule 14 (2) of the Matmi Rules retrospectively to an adoption which had been made prior to the enforcement of the Rules. THE appellants who were the respondents before the High Court agreed that the Board had exceeded its authority in sanctioning matmi but argued that subsequently the matter was referred to His Highness the Rajpramukh and that Govind Narain was recognised as successor of Hiralal by His Highness the Rajpramukh by virtue of the power conferred upon him by Art. VII (3) of the Covenant and as the recognition of a successor to Jagir was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rajpramukh there was nothing wrong with the decision of the Board. THE letter of the Revenue Secretary to the Commissioner Jaipur dated 6-9-54 was also produced which ran as below: - "i am directed to convey formal sanction of His Highness the Rajpramukh to the matmi in the name of Shri Govind Narain in respect of the muafi grant last held by Shri Hiralal deceased in village Bidarka, Suranpura, Naila and Nagal. "