1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR --------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 111 of 1996 Chimanpal Singh V/S Board of Revenue & ORS Mr. Anil Bhandari, for the appellant. Date of Order : 21.10.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition summarily. In brief, the necessary facts are that, one Balwant Singh, Jagirdar of village Pahada,whose Jagir was resumed and compensation was determined. That compensation was offered to the Jagirdar but he declined to receive it voluntarily. Obviously, with the result that, the bonds of compensation which were issued, stood cancelled. It appears that after the death of Jagirdar, his widow Ummed Kanwar gave a second thought and on 31.5.1977 filed an application claiming compensation along with interest. That claim was declined by the Jagir Commissioner. That matter was carried further in appeal before the Board of 2 Revenue. The matter was heard by Division Bench and the two learned Members constituting the Bench differed therefore, matter was referred to third member, who vide order dated 21.4.1984, agreed with one of the Members and held that it would not be in keeping with the principles of equity, justice and good conscious to deny the compensation to the widow, and therefore, held the applicant Ummed Kanwar to be entitled to the compensation and directed the amount to be paid at the earliest. However, it was held that she would not be entitled for any interest from the date of resumption till the date of filing of the application being 31.5.1977. Thereafter again, a review petition was filed. Vide order dated 19.12.1984, the same learned Member dismissed the review petition by finding that the information of provisional award was sent to the Jagirdar but he declined to receive any compensation, then again on passing of the final award, notice was sent to receive the amount but the Jagirdar declined, and obviously did not receive the compensation, therefore, the bonds were cancelled. Thus, it was found that order does not suffer any error apparent on the face of the record. 3 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the nature of the claim raised by the petitioner is not entertainable in the writ jurisdiction, as the petitioner has to establish his right to claim interest before the appropriate civil court. Thus, the writ petition being misconceived, was dismissed as such. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as nobody appeared for the respondents. In our view also, when the Jagirdar had voluntarily declined to receive the compensation as offered to him, it cannot be said that the Jagirdar was deprived of the money to which he was entitled, in any illegal manner. All said and done, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that in the very nature of things, the interest is a compensation for illegal deprivation of the money, may be called by whatever name. Thus inherently, until and unless, it is shown that the appellant or the applicant was, in any manner, illegally deprived of the money to which he/she was entitled, it cannot be said that appellants are entitled to any interest. No other legal provision has been shown to us, which may hold that she is entitled to interest, even de hors the above principles. The learned Board of Revenue 4 significantly, has declined the entitlement of the appellant to award any interest until 31.5.1977, which in our view, does not suffer from any error, requiring interference by this Court. The appeal thus, having no force, is hereby dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /praveen /