KHEMRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the order of the Dy. Collector, Chittorgarh dated 21.2.1958 whereby he rejected an application for the claim of compensation on account of resumption of muafi in Amba -ka -javasia on the ground that he had not got his name mutated in place of the last holder Tej Shanker since deceased in accordance with the Muafi Rules of the erstwhile Mewar State of Svt. 2001.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Government Advocate in the matter and have examined the record as well.

(3.) The main point urged on behalf of the appellant is that his application for claim should have been treated as one under sec. 37 of the Act and should have been decided as such or if the learned Dy. Collector felt that the application was covered by the provision of Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Jagirs Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 and the case was not regarded as having been till then decided by a competent court, the application should have been Kept pending and matter referred under sub -sec. 4 of sec. 37 of the Act to the competent court for enquiry and decision and then acted in accordance with such decision. He has also contended that the Muafi rules referred to above did not make it obligatory upon the appellant to have his name mutated in place of the last holder of the Muafi since deceased, and also out the case was not covered by those Muafi rules and consequently by the provision of the Rajasthan Jagirs Decision and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 and the matter was one which should be decided under the terms of sec. 135 and 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in accordance with the provision of sec. 137 of that very Act as a simple mutation by the Tehsildar himself. This contention has been repelled on behalf of the learned Government Advocate on the ground that when the learned Deputy Collector passed the impugned order, the provision of sec. 37 of the Act were entirely different from what they are now, and up till 25.5.59, the passing of the Rajasthan Act No. 25 of 1959 there existed as sub -sec. (4) in this section and therefore there was no option before the learned Dy. Collector excepting dismissing of the claim of the appellant, his claim being not related to a title right or interest in any Jagir land arising in the course of a proceeding under the Act, but one for compensation preferred under sec. 31 of the Act consequent upon the resumption of a Jagir under sec. 21 of the Act.