Case: Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer &amp; Ors Vs. Rao Bal Deo Singh &amp; Ors

in the present case falls directly within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act and the Jagir Commissioner alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine that question. 8. It was objected on behalf of the respondents that, in any case, the question cannot be determined by the Jagir Commissioner after 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 section 23 (a) 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. 9. 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, l962. The Board of Revenue has pointed out that the decision of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959 was illegal since ho 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 D/- 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, Raisinghnagar 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 argument were heard and the case was directed to be put up for writing out the report on September 9, 1959. On this date the Sub-Divisional 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 shall 2 months from the date of fee 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, l959 and remanded the case to him with the direction that he should hold the enquiry himself or may entrust the enquire under the provisions of section 23 (2) of the Act to a Subordinate Officer and that the enquiry must be holding 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. 10. 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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 determination 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 khudkasht under Section 23 (1) of the Act and by taking recourse to the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act respondent No. 1 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 as 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 Section 23 of the Act and therefore the Jagir Commissioner is the exclusive authority to hold enquiry into the dispute and give a decision thereonWe are accordingly of the opinion that an enquiry under Section 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 Section 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 orderIn our view, section 23 of the Act is independent of sec. 37 of the Act as it deals with an enquiry of the nature of the property mentioned in Section 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 Section 23 empowers the Jagir Commissioner to determine the character of the properties claimed by the Jagirdar as khudkasht 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, Section 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 section 37 is quite different from that of Section 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 Section 23 of the Act and the Jagir Commissioner alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine that questionFor 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 Section 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 Section 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 section 23 (a) 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 caseThe Board of Revenue has pointed out that the decision of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959 was illegal since ho 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 D/- 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, Raisinghnagar 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 argument were heard and the case was directed to be put up for writing out the report on September 9, 1959. On this date the Sub-Divisional 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 shall 2 months from the date of fee 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, l959 and remanded the case to him with the direction that he should hold the enquiry himself or may entrust the enquire under the provisions of section 23 (2) of the Act to a Subordinate Officer and that the enquiry must be holding 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, 196210. 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.