BHAGI MALIK Vs. SATYABADI OTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of a village chaukidar from the chaukidari jagir. The land was recorded at the provincial settlement as chaukidari jagir in possession of the defendant's father and at the recent revisional settlement as chaukidari jagir of the defendant with a note that this jagir had been given in niskar for village chauki work by the sub-proprietors. The Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the sub-proprietors had no right to resume the jagir of the chaukidar who held an office of a public nature, but his decision was reversed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge who held that since the Record of Rights stated that the jagir had been granted by the sub-proprietors they were entitled to resume it. It was alleged in the plaint that the jagir was liable to resumption, because the chaukidar failed to perform certain services to the zamindar in consideration of which the jagir had been granted, but according to the Record of Rights the jagir is a chaukidar jagir granted for chaukidari work.

(2.) It is argued on behalf of the appellant chaukidar that his office being of a public nature, the land is not liable to resumption at the instance of the zamindar, and furtherthat this jagir being in the nature of a grant of land burdened with service, cannot be resumed so long as the holder is willing to render services due on account of the jagir. Rai Bahadur G.M. Acharya on behalf the respondents raises a new point for the first time in second appeal that the defendant himself is no longer the chaukidar but that his son has been doing the work of the village chaukidar for the last seven years. This point was not raised at any earlier stage of the proceedings, and if the son is doing the work of the chaukidar, that would on the face of it appear to justify the retention of the jagir by the family, of which the nominal holder is the father or the son.

(3.) The nature of these chaukidar jagirs was discussed by the Privy Council in Raja Ranjit Singh V/s. Kali Dasi Debi A.I.R.1917. P.C. 8 wherein Lord Parker pointed out that the zamindar was not ordinarily entitled to resume chaukidari land, because chaukidars had public duties to perform, and the lands which they held on service tenure as remuneration for the performance of such duties are to that extent appropriated or assigned for public purposes.