Board of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer
& Ors Vs. Rao Bal Deo Singh & Ors [1967] INSC 298 (14 December 1967)
14/12/1967 RAMASWAMI, V.
RAMASWAMI, V.
SHAH, J.C.
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA
CITATION: 1968 AIR 898 1968 SCR (2) 661
ACT:
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of
Jagirs Act (Raj. 6 of 1952), ss. 23, 37 and 47-Jagirdar claims land as
khudkhast-Jagir Commissioner to determine-ss. 23 and 37, Scope of.
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of
Jagirs Rules, 1954 rr. 23, 24 and 28-Hearing within less than 2 months, report
submitted without giving notices and without holding enquiry-Legality.
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (Raj. 15 of 1956)
ss. 125 and 136-Disputes regarding entries-Land Record officer to decide but
not Jagirdar's claim of lands as Khudkhasht.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent-Jagirdar, on the resumption of
his jagir under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption. of
Jagirs Act, 1952, claimed certain agricultural lands as his Khudkhast land. The
Divisional Commissioner accepted the recommendation made by the Collector and
directed the Collector to enter the land as Khudkhast of the respondent. On
appeal the Board of Revenue, remanded the case to the Divisional Commissioner
with a direction that he should refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner. The
Jagir Commissioner, held it to be the personal property of the respondent. The
State appealed to the Board of Revenue, which remanded the case to the Jagir
Commissioner to dispose of the matter after proper enquiry in accordance with
the provisions of Jagir Rules framed under the Act. Thereupon the respondent
move(] the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and the High Court
quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue holding that no enquiry under s.
23(2) of the Act was necessary and it required disposal in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 regarding the
correction of the entries. In appeal, to this Court, the appellants contended
that (i) the dispute related essentially to the character of he properties, and
therefore the Jagir Commissioner had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine
the question; and (ii) the Board of Revenue was right in remanding the case the
second time, as rr. 23, 24 and 28 of the Jagir Rules, 1954 were not followed inasmuch
a,-, the date of hearing was fixed within less than 2 months of the receipt of
the order and report was submitted to the Jagir Commissioner without giving the
notices and without holding the enquiry.
HELD : The appeal must be allowed.
(i) The dispute in this case was essentially
as to the character of the property claimed by respondent as khudkhasht and
fell directly within the purview of s. 23 of the Act and therefore the Jagir
Commissioner was the exclusive authority to hold enquiry into the dispute and
give a decision thereon. [670 C] Reading s. 23 of the Act in the context of ss.
46 and 47 of the Act it is manifest that an exclusive jurisdiction is conferred
upon the Jagir Commissioner to decide the question as to whether any property
of the 662 Jagirdar is of the nature of khudkasht and the decision of the Jagir
Commissioner on this question is final and cannot be challenged collaterally in
a Civil or Revenue Court. It is true that ss. 125 and 136 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act confer power on the Land Records Officer to decide disputes with
regard to the entries in the record of rights or in the annual registers, as
the case may be. But neither the Land Records Officer nor any other Revenue
Courts contemplated by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act have jurisdiction to
enquire into the question whether the property claimed by the Jagirdar is
khudkhasht within the meaning of s. 23 of the Act. The reason is that the
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 is a special Act and
the general maxim is that a subsequent General Act does not affect a pror
special Act by implicationgeneralia sepcialibus non derogant. [670 F-H;
671 A] Section 23 of the Act is independent
of s. 37 of the Act as it deals with an enquiry of the nature of the property
mentioned in s. 23(1) and it has nothing to do with the question of determining
the right, title or interest of the Jagirdar in the land. Section 23 empowers
the Jagir Commissioner to determine the character of the properties claimed by
the Jagirdar as Khudkhasht for determination of the compensation to be paid and
determining other questions which are incidental to the resumption of the Jagir
land., On the other hand s. 37 of the Act deals with questions of disputed
titles and with regard to such a question the section makes a provision for
enquiry either by the Jagir Commissioner or by a revenue authority under the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It is manifest that the scope of s.
37 is quite different from that of s. 23 and
the nature of the enquiry contemplated by the two sections also is different.
[671 E-G] Barker v. Edger [1898] A.C. 748. referred lo.
(ii) The Board of Revenue was right in taking
the view that the Jagir Commissioner should have followed the procedure
prescribed by the statutory rules. [673 F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 454 of 1965.
Appeal from the Judgment and order October 7,
1963 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 482 of 1962.
M. C. Chagla, K. B. Mehta and Indu Soni, for the
appellants.
R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwala,
Shivpujan Singh and Anil Kumar Gupta, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the
Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition no. 482
of 1962. By its judgment the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the
respondents and quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959,
April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962.
The jagir of respondent no. 1, Rao Bal Deo
Singh was resumed with effect from August 15, 1954 under the provisions of the
663 Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act no. VI of
1952), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.
A notice was issued by the Collector, Bikaner
to respondent no. 1, on August 23, 1954 asking him to hand over the charge of
the jagir but respondent no. 1 did not comply with the notice as he had filed a
writ application in the High Court challenging the validity of the Act. A
subsequent notice was issued to respondent no. 1, by the Collector on May 14,
1955 directing him to hand over charge of the jagir.
Respondent no. 1 actually handed over charge
of the jagir on September 27, 1955 and at the same time submitted a list of his
private properties under s. 23 of the Act. In the said list was included 5490
bighas and odd of agricultural land in villages Mirgarh, Anandgarh and Rawla in
Ganganagar district and Anupgarh in Bikaner district which respondent no. 1
claimed as his khudkasht land. On March 18, 1957 respondent no.1 made an
application to the Tahsildar, Anupgarh to correct entries in the revenue
records and to show the area claimed by him as his khudkasht land. After an
enquiry the Tahsildar, Anupgarh forwarded the application to the Assistant
Collector, Ganganagar recommending the correction of the entries as prayed for
by respondent no. 1.
The Assistant Collector forwarded the papers
to the Collector, Ganganagar who recommended to the, Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner
that the correction of entries may be made. By his order dated November 30,
1958 the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner accorded sanction and directed the
Collector to enter the disputed lands in the revenue records as khudkasht lands
of respondent no. 1. On appeal to the Board of Revenue the case was remanded to
the Divisional Commissioner on July 24, 1959 with a direction that he should
refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner and till his decision was received
the entries in the revenue record should not be altered. It appears that the
record of the case was transmitted for compliance to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Raisinghnagar by the office of the Commissioner of Bikaner, who, after
making an enquiry, submitted his recommendation to the Jagir Commissioner
instead of sending it to the Divisional Commissioner to correct the relevant
entries. Meanwhile, the Director of Colonisation came to know of the
proceedings which were going on and therefore he addressed a letter on December
22, 1958 to the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner to review his order dated
November 30, 1958 and requested him to refer the matter to the Jagir
Commissioner who was the only competent authority to determine the nature of
the disputed property under s. 23(2) of the Act. On receipt of the said letter
the Divisional Commissioner reviewed his previous order of November 30, 1958
and ultimately dismissed the objections of Director of Colonisation on March 5,
1959. It appears that the Additional Jagir Commissioner after receiving the
papers from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar also decided the matter
on 664 October 5, 1959 holding that the disputed land should be treated as the
personal property of the ex-Jagirdar of Sattasar. The State of Rajasthan
preferred appeals to the Board of Revenue against the orders of the
Commissioner, Bikaner dated March 5, 1959 and against the order of the
Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959. By its judgment dated July
24, 1959 the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Commissioner of
Bikaner and directed him to decide the case after referring the matter to the
Jagir Commissioner for determining the nature of the property under s. 23(2) of
the Act. By its order dated April 8, 1960 the Board of Revenue quashed the
order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner and remanded the case to him with
the direction that he should dispose of the matter after proper enquiry in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the Act. Respondent
no. 1 preferred a review against the order of the Board of Revenue dated April
8, 1960 but the review petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on July
16, 1962. Respondent no. 1 thereafter moved the High Court of Rajasthan for the
grant of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. By its judgment dated
October 7, 1963 the Rajasthan High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed
the orders of the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959, April 8, 1960 and July
16, 1962, holding that no enquiry under s. 23(2) of the Act was necessary in the
case and the matter required to be disposed in accordance with the procedure
laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act. no. 15 of 1956)
regarding the correction of entries. The High Court accordingly directed that
the Board of Revenue may either itself dispose the appeal if no further
material was required for the purpose or may pass such orders which the
circumstances required for final disposal of the case.
It is necessary at this stage to set out the
provisions of the relevant statutes. On February 13, 1952 the Rajasthan
Legislature enacted the Act to provide for the resumption of jagir lands. Under
s. 21 of the Act the Government of Rajasthan was empowered to issue a
notification appointing a date for the resumption of any class of jagir lands
and under s. 22 of the Act the right, title and interest of the Jagirdar in his
jagir lands stood resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances as from
the date of resumption notified under s. 21. Section 23 of the Act, however,
provided that the khudkasht lands of the jagirdar shall be continued to be held
by the jagirdar. Section 23 states "23. Private lands, buildings, wells,
house sites and enclosures.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last
preceding section(a) Khudkasht lands of a Jagirdar;
6 6 5 (b) (i) all open enclosures used for
agricultural. or domestic purposes and in his continuous possession (which
including possession of any predecessor-in-interest) for six years immediately
before the date of resumption;
(ii) (iii) all private buildings, places of
worship, and wells situated in, and trees standing on lands, included in such
enclosures or house-sites, as are specified in clause (i) above, or land
appertaining to such buildings or places of -worship;
(iv) all groves and fruit trees wherever
situate, belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person;
(c) all private wells and buildings belonging
to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person;
(d) all tanks in the personal occupation of
the Jagirdar and not used for irrigating the lands of any tenant in the jagir
land;
shall continue to belong to or be held by
such Jagirdar or other person:
(2) If any question arises whether any
property is of the nature referred to in subsection (1), it shall be referred
to the Jagir Commissioner, who may, after holding the prescribed enquiry, make
such order thereon as he deems fit." Section 2(i) defines 'Khudkasht' to
mean "any land cultivated personally by a jagirdar and includes : (i) any
land recorded as khudkasht, Sir, or Hawala in settlement records; and (ii) any
land allotted to a Jagirdar as khudkasht under Chapter IV". Section 37
reads as follows :
"37. Question of title.-(1) If in the
course of a proceeding under this Act any question relating to title, right or
interest in any jagir land, other than a question as to any khudkasht land or
the correctness or otherwise of any entry relating thereto in settlement
records or as to any boundary, map, fieldbook, record of rights or annual
register or as to any Wazib-ul-arz or Dasturganwai or any other settlement
paper lawfully prepared or as to the correctness or otherwise of any entry made
666 therein or a question referred to in section 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir
Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955, arises and the question so
arising has not already been determined by a competent authority, the Jagir
Commissioner shall proceed to make an inquiry into the merits of the question
so arising and pass such orders thereon as he deems fit.
(2) Every question referred to in section 3
of the Rajasthan Jagir Decision and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 shall be
inquired into and decided by a revenue officer or court declared by the
provisions of the said Act competent to do so.
(3) Every other question excluded by subsection
(1) from the jurisdiction of the Jagir Commissioner shall be inquired into and
decided by a revenue officer or court competent to do so under the provisions
of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 or the Rules made thereunder.
(4) If any such question as is referred to in
subsections (2) and (3) arises in the course of a proceeding under this Act,
the Jagir Commissioner shall refer it for inquiry and decision of the court
competent to do so and shall be bound by, and act according to such decision."
Section 46 provides "Bar of Jurisdiction.-( 1) Save as otherwise provided
in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of
any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any
officer or authority under this Act.
(2) No order made by any such officer or
authority under this Act shall be called in question in any Court."
Section 47 states :
"Act to override other laws.-Save as
otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act and of the
rules and orders made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything
therein contained being inconsistent with any existing Jagir law or any other
law for the time being in force." Rules 22, 23, 24, 26 and 28 of the
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954 are to the following
effect :
:22. Submission of list of personal
properties by Jagirdars.-(1) The Jagirdar shall submit to the officers taking
over such charge a list of the properties which he 667 claims as his private
and personal properties under subsection (1) of section 23 of the Act.
(2) Copies of such list shall be annexed with
the reports submitted under rule 21 of sub-rule (3).
(3) If the officer taking over such charge is
of the opinion that any item of property included in the list submitted under
sub-rule (1) is not the property which the jagirdar is entitled to hold under
sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act, he shall record reasons for such
opinion and refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner under sub-section (2) of
section 23 of the Act. While making the report under rule 21, sub-rule (3), a
copy of such reference shall be forwarded to the Government as well as to the
Collector of the District in which the property in dispute is situated :
Provided that where the officer deputed to
take over charge of a jagir is below the rank of Tehsildar he shall submit his
opinion to the Tehsildar concerned who shall refer the same with his opinion to
the Jagir Commissioner.
(4) A copy of such list shall also be affixed
on the notice board of the Tehsil concerned, and the Municipal Board or Village
Panchayat concerned shall be informed that they may see the list in the Tehsil
and submit their objections, if any, to the inclusion of any property or part
of it in the list to the Tehsildar within a specified time.
(5) The Tehsildar may extend the time
specified by him under sub-rule (4), if he is satisfied that there are
sufficient grounds for doing so and shall submit the objections received from
the Municipal Board or the Panchayat with his opinion to the Jagir Commissioner
through the Collector." "23. Inquiry by Jagir Commissioner in the
matter of personal properties.-(1) Upon receipt of a reference under the last
preceding rule, or where he decides to review the list on his own motion, the
Jagir Commissioner shall appoint a date for holding an inquiry into the matter.
Such date shall not be less than two months from the date of the order and a
public notice thereof shall be issued within a week of such order.
(2) Instead of holding the enquiry himself
under sub-rule (1) the Jagir Commissioner may entrust the enquiry to any
officer not below the rank of an Assistant Jagir Commissioner or Sub-Divisional
Officer." 668 "24. Notice how to be served. (1) The notice given
under rule 23 shall be served on the Jagirdar concerned, the Revenue Secretary
to the Government and the Collector of the district in which the property in
dispute is situated in the manner provided for the service of summons on a
defendant in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(2) Copies of the notice shall be sent to the
Tehsildar within whose jurisdiction the property in dispute is situated :(a)
for being proclaimed by beat of drum to the inhabitants of the locality where
such property is situated;
(b) for being exhibited at some conspicuous
place in such locality; and (c) for being posted, thereafter on the notice
board of the Tehsil." "26. Who may contest.-(1) The State shall be
represented at such inquiry by the Collector or any other Officer not below the
rank of a Naib Tehsildar as the Collector may by order in writing appoint in
that behalf.
(2) If any inhabitants of the locality in
which the property in dispute is situated are in any manner interested therein,
they may contest the claim of the Jagirdar in respect thereof and may jointly
appoint one or more persons not exceeding three in number to represent them at
such inquiry." "28. Mode of inquiry regarding personal
properties.-The Jagir Commissioner or the officer holding the inquiry shall
allow the Jagirdar, the State and the inhabitants of the locality desiring to
contest the claim of the Jagirdar reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove
their respective contentions. The enquiry shall be held in the manner provided
for the trial of a suit by a Revenue Court, and where the enquiry has been held
by any officer other than the Jagir Commissioner such officer shall submit the
record with a report of his findings to the Jagir Commissioner for his
orders." Section 122 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 provides -as
follows :
"122. Attestation of entries and
decision of disputes -All undisputed entries in the record of rights shall be
attested by the parties interested, and all disputes 669 regarding such
entries, whether taken up by the Land Records Officer of his own motion or upon
application by any party interested, shall be disposed of by him in accordance
with the provisions of sections 123, 124 and 125." Section 125 is to the
following effect "125. Settlement of disputes as to entries in record of
rights.-(1) All other disputes regarding entries on the record of rights shall
be decided on the basis of possession.
(2) If in the course of inquiry into a
dispute under this section the Land Records Officer is unable to satisfy
himself as to which party is in possession, he shall ascertain by summary
enquiry who is the person best entitled to possession and shall decide the
dispute accordingly.
(3) No order as to possession passed under
this section shall debar any person from establishing his right to the property
in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction." Section 136 reads
"136. Decision of disputes.-All disputes respecting the class or tenure of
any tenant or regarding the rent or revenue payable or regarding entries in the
annual registers shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of section
123 or section 124 or section 125, as the case may be." On behalf of the
appellants Mr. M. C. Chagla put forward the argument that the High Court erred
in law in holding that the dispute in the present case merely related to the
correction of entries envisaged in ss. 122 to 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act, 1956 and as such the Revenue Authorities were competent to order
correction of such entries. It was submitted that the question as to whether
the land claimed by respondent No.1 was khudkasht land within the meaning of s.
23(1)(a) read with s. 2(i) of the Act was a matter which the Jagir Commission
alone could determine under s. 23(2) of the Act and the jurisdiction of other
authorities was completely barred. The argument was stressed that the dispute
between the parties was essentially a dispute relating to the character of the
properties claimed to be khudkasht by respondent No. 1 and therefore the Jagir
Commissioner had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine that question under s.
23(2) of the Act. It is true that respondent No. 1 had applied for correction
of entries in the revenue records but the correction of revenue records really
depended upon the deter670 mination of the character of the disputed property
and unless it was held by competent authority under the Act that the property
was khudkasht land of the Jagirdar the application of respondent no. 1 for the
correction of the revenue entries could not be decided by the Revenue
Authorities under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. To put it
differently, the argument of the appellants was that the real question that
arose for determination was whether the disputed land was khudkasbt under s.
23(1) of the Act and by taking recourse to the provisions of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act respondent no. I could not oust the jurisdiction of the Jagir
Commissioner for determination of the dispute. In our opinion the argument put
forward by Mr. M. C. Chagla on behalf of the appellants is well-founded and
must be accepted 'is correct.
The dispute in this case is essentially as to
the character of the property claimed by respondent no. 1 as khudkasht and
falls directly within the purview of S. 23 of the Act and therefore the Jagir
Commissioner is the exclusive authority to hold enquiry into the dispute and
give a decision thereon. The language of s. 23 of the Act is peremptory in
character and the section requires that if any question arises whether any
property is of the nature referred to in sub-s. (1), it shall be referred to
the Jagir Commissioner, who may, after holding the prescribed enquiry, make
such order thereon as he deems fit. Section 46 of the Act relates to bar of
jurisdiction and states that no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction
in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with
by any officer or authority under the Act. The section makes further provision
that no order made by any such officer or authority under the Act shall be
called in question in any Court. Section 47 expressly states that the
provisions of the Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall have
effect notwithstanding anything therein contained being inconsistent with any existing
Jagir law or any other law for the time being in force. Reading S. 23 of the
Act in the context of ss. 46 and 47 of the Act it is manifest that an exclusive
jurisdiction is conferred upon the Jagir Commissioner to decide the question as
to whether any property of the Jagirdar is of the nature of khudkasht and the
decision of the Jagir Commissioner on this question is final and cannot be
challenged collaterally in a Civil or Revenue Court. It is true that ss. 125
and 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act confer power on the Land Records
Officer to decide disputes with regard to the entries in the record of rights
or in the annual registers, as the case may be. But neither the Land Records
Officer nor any other Revenue Courts contemplated by the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act have jurisdiction to enquire into the question whether the property claimed
by the Jagirdar is khudkasht within the meaning of S. 23 of the Act. The reason
is that the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 is a special
Act and the general maxim is that a subsequent Gene671 ral Act does not affect
a prior special Act by implication.-Generalia specialibus non
derogant.-"When the legislature has given its attention to a separate
subject and made provision for it, the presumption is that a subsequent general
enactment is not intended to interfere with the special provision unless it
manifests that intention very clearly. Each enactment must be construed in that
respect according to its own subject-matter and its own terms." (Barker v.
Edger) (1). We are accordingly of the opinion that an enquiry under S. 23(2) of
the Act was necessary in this case and that the Board of Revenue was right in
taking the view that the matter should be referred to the Jagir Commissioner for
determining the nature of the property under S. 23(2) of the Act and only after
his decision is received should the Commissioner, Bikaner take up the question
with regard to the correction of entries under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
We consider that the order of the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959 is based
on a correct interpretation of the law and the High Court of Rajasthan was in
error in setting aside that order.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended
that s. 23 of the Act must be read along with s. 37 and since the Jagir
Commissioner is not given any authority under s. 37 to make any enquiry with
regard to the khudkasht land of the Jagirdar it must be held that under s. 23
of the Act also the Jagir Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make such an
enquiry. In our opinion, there is no justification for this argument. In our
view, s. 23 of the Act is independent of s. 37 of the Act as it deals with an
enquiry of the nature of the property mentioned in s. 23(1), and it has nothing
to do with the question of determining the right, title or interest of the
Jagirdar in the land. Having regard to the scheme and purpose of the Act it is
manifest that s. 23 empowers the Jagir Commissioner to determine the character
of the properties claimed by the Jagirdar as kliudkasht for determination of
the compensation to be paid and determining other questions which are
incidental to the resumption of the jagir land. On the other hand, s. 37 of the
Act deals with questions of disputed titles and with regard to such a question
the section makes a provision for enquiry either by the Jagir Commissioner or
by a revenue authority under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It is
manifest that the scope of s. 37 is quite different from that of s. 23 and the
nature of the enquiry contemplated by the two sections also is different. As we
have already pointed out, the question arising in the present case falls
directly within the ambit of S. 23 of the Act and the Jagir Commissioner alone
has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine that question.
It was objected on behalf of the respondents
that, in any case, the question cannot be determined by the Jagir Commissioner
after (1) [1898] A.C. 748.
672 the resumption proceedings had come to an
end. It was said that after the proceedings for resumption were completed under
the Act and award of compensation has been made, there is no jurisdiction left
in the Jagir Commissioner to proceed with an enquiry under S. 23(2) of the Act.
For the purpose of this case it is not necessary for us to express any opinion
as to whether the Jagir Commissioner has jurisdiction to make an enquiry under
S. 23(2) of the Act after the proceedings for resumption have come to a close.
It appears that in the present case the
Director of Colonisation addressed a letter to the Divisional Commissioner,
Bikaner on December 22, 1958 for review of his order dated November 30, 1958
and that he also requested that the matter should be referred to the Jagir
Commissioner as he was the only competent authority to determine the nature of
the disputed property under S. 23(2) of the Act.
On receipt of this letter the Divisional
Commissioner, Bikaner reviewed his previous order of November 30, 1958 and
dismissed the objections of Director of Colonisation on March 5, 1959. It is
admitted that the final award was made by the Additional Jagir Commissioner
with regard to compensation on January 20, 1959. We shall assume in favour of
the respondents that the proceedings for resumption came to a close on January
20, 1959. Even on that assumption the dispute was raised by the Director of
Colonisation on December 22, 1958, long before the date of the final award on
January 20, 1959 and the Jagir Commissioner had jurisdiction to proceed with
the enquiry under S. 23(2) of the Act since the proceedings for resumption were
still pending. We are accordingly of the opinion that Counsel for the
respondents is unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case.
We proceed to consider the next question
arising in this case, viz. whether the High Court was in error in setting aside
the orders of the Board of Revenue dated April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962. The
Board of Revenue has pointed out that the decision of the Additional Jagir
Commissioner dated October 5, 1959 was illegal since he did not follow the
procedure contemplated by Rules 23 and 26 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and
Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). It
appears that by its previous order dated July 24, 1959 the Board of Revenue had
set aside the orders of the Divisional Commissioner dated November 30, 1958 and
March 5, 1959 and the matter was remanded to him with the direction to refer
the matter to the Jagir Commissioner and till the decision of the Jagir
Commissioner was received entries in the records should stand as they stood
prior to the impugned orders. In compliance with this decision the record was
transmitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ganganagar by the office of the
Commissioner, Bikaner who in turn sent them on August 24, 1959 to the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar. The letter reached the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Raisingh673 nagar on August 29, 1959 and on it the Sub-Divisional
Officer wrote down the following order: "Received today, inform the
parties to appear before me on 5-9-59" : It appears that on September 5,
1959 Shri Murlidhar and Shri Sada Nand appeared before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, statements of 5 persons were recorded and arguments were heard and the
case was directed to be put up for writing out the report on September 9, 1959.
On this date the SubDivisional Officer wrote out the report and forwarded the
papers to the Additional Jagir Commissioner. On October 1, 1959, the Additional
Jagir Commissioner heard the arguments of the parties and pronounced his
decision on October 5, 1959. The Board of Revenue has pointed out that under
Rule 23 a date not less than 2 months from the date of the order should have
been fixed for hearing of the case and published notice should have been served
not only on the Jagirdar but also upon the Revenue Secretary to the Government
and the Collector of the district. Rule 28 states that the mode of inquiry was
that provided for the trial of a suit by a Revenue court. The Sub-Divisional
Officer instead of following the rules fixed the date of hearing within a week
of the receipt of the order and within further 5 days submitted his report
without giving the notices under Rules 23 and 24 and without holding the
enquiry in the manner prescribed by Rule 28. The Board of Revenue accordingly
set aside the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959
and remanded the case back to him with the direction that he should hold the
enquiry himself or may entrust the enquiry under the provisions of s. 23(2) of
the Act to a Subordinate Officer and that the enquiry must be held in either
case in accordance with law and the case should be decided thereafter afresh.
In our opinion, the Board of Revenue was right in taking the view that the
Additional Jagir Commissioner should have followed the procedure prescribed by
the statutory rules and the High Court had no justification for setting aside
the order of the Board of Revenue dated April 8, 1960 and of July 16, 1962.
For the reasons expressed we hold that the
order of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963 quashing the orders of
the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959, April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962
should be set aside and Civil Writ Petition No. 482 of 1962 filed by the
respondents should be dismissed. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside
the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963, but in the
circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Y.P. Appeal allowed.
Back
