PARWATI DEVI Vs. TH GUMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, has been filed against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, dated 19.12.55 in a case under sec. 27 of the Act, whereby the appellants Shrimati Parwati and Shri Ramcharan Singh were held uneligible to receive maintenance.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The learned Jagir Commissioner has disposed of the case by reference to a decision of the Board in Budh Singh vs. Mehta Chandu Singh, reported in R.R.D 1957 page 201. It was observed therein that the Jagir Commissioner had no jurisdiction to determine the maintenance of the reason that he was not in receipt of any allowance at the time of the resumption of the grant. The implication of these observations were examined by the Board in Hanuman Singh vs. Amur Singh decided on 18th June, 1958 1959 RLW, 29 (RS.) WE may refer to para 9 of the judgment which runs as below: - "It was also argued before us that as the appellants had not actually received any maintenance during the past, they should not be held eligible to the same as decided by the Board in Budh Singh vs. Mehta Chandu Singh, case No 4/Bikaner 1956 decided on 23.3.57 to which one of us was a party. That case can be easily distinguished from the present one. In that case the question of maintenance was never raised or decided by any competent authority prior to the resumption of the Jagir and it was on this basis that it was held that no maintenance could be allowed under the provisions of the Act. In the present case it is clear that the appellants had been adjudged eligible to a maintenance allowance first by the Mehkma Council of the Bikaner State and subsequently by the Ruler of the Bikaner State in 1948. The fact that no payments were actually made would not detract from the value of this decision as otherwise it would amount to placing a premium of deliberate non-payment by the Thikana. In the present case it appears that non-payment was to some extent due to the non-completion of survey proceeding in the Thikana Thus to our minds there is a clear distinction in a case where maintenance allowance has been adjudged to be paid by a competent authority but has not been actually paid and where the question of maintenance allowance was neither raised before nor decided by any competent authority prior to the resumption of the Jagir. The contention raised before us is untenable."