SITARAM BHANDAR TRUST PILANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has come up before me as there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Members who heard this appeal filed by Shri Sitaram Bhandar Trust u/s 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, against the orders of the Jagir Commissioner dated 3-9-1964.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Thakur Kalyansinghji of Nawalgarh dedicated 401 bighas of land to the temple of Sitaramji constructed by Seth Baldeodasji Jagal Kishoreji, Birla of Pilani in Smt. 1974. He charged a premium of Rs. 6701/-and issued a Sanad in favour of the Birlas, subject to the stipulation which was made in the patta that the rent drived from the land is to be used for the bhog of the Thakurji. THE appellants were given the right to construct wells and houses on the land. THEy were to pay no rent to the grantor. THEreafter this land was sought to be resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act. THE appellants contested the resumption of this land under the Jagir Act on the ground that the land was purchased by them for a consideration and was no longer jagir land and could not be resumed under the Jagir Act. THE Jagir Commissioner by the order under appeal held that the land that was sold to the Birlas was resumable, as the jagirdars could not sell the culturable land in their jagir villages. THEy could only transfer tenancy rights. THE character of the land sold retained its jagir nature.

(3.) IT goes without saying that the parcels of land sold for abadi purposes to individual vendors are not resumable under Jagir Law. On the same analogy, the parcels of culturable land also similarly sold cannot be held to be resumable under the Jagir law. On this interpretation and for the reason given by Shri R. K. Chaturvedy in his judgment, I feel inclined to support his view and hold that the land given by Thakur Kalyansingh of Nawalgarh comprising of 401 bighas for a valuable consideration amounting to Rs. 6701/- cannot be considered as a sub-grant of sub-jagirdar and cannot be, therefore, resumed as it does not fall within the ambit of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. As a result, I would accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order. .