Case: Thakur Bahadur Singh Vs. The State Of Rajasthan And Others

Thakur Nathu Singh ,the Jagirdar of Ras.-a "Scheduled Jagir" under the Marwar Act died in July, 1946, leaving the petitioner, Thakur Bahadur Singh as his next heir. "Scheduled Jagirs" are, under the Marwar Act, impartible and their line of devolution was prescribed by S. 182 thereof whichshall be governed in the case of scheduled Jagirs by the rule ofsuccession, however, was not automatic but had to be recognised by the Government and a renewal granted in favour of the successor before his title to the jagir was perfected. Sections 183-185 of the Marwar Act which are of relevance in this connection183. All grants of Scheduled Jagirs are only for the lifetime of the holder, and no person is entitled to succeed to such jagir until his succession is recognized and the grant is renewed in his favour by His Highness.Section 184, Subject always to His Highness pleasure, the grant of a Scheduled Jagir, on the death of the holder, shall be renewed in favour of the person entitled to succeed him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.Section 185 (1). A Scheduled Jagir, on the death of the holder, and until the renewal of the grant in favour of his successor, shall be resumed by the Government and taken under direct management:Provided that the claimant to succession shall, in the absence of special orders of His Highness be permitted to retain possession pending orders of His Highness regarding the claim, if he is a direct lineal descendant in the male line of the last holder.2. ........ ........ ........ ...........3....... ........ ...... ..... ..... ....4...... .......... .... .... .....tile of the petitioner to succeed to the Jagir as the next heir of his father was recognised and a renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an order dated March 18, 1952. Section 190 of the Marwar Act imposes an obligation on a succeeding heir whose title has been recognised and to whom a renewal of the jagir has been granted, to make certain payments. This section190(1). When succession to a Scheduled Jagir is recognised by His Highness and renewal of the grant ordered, the person in whose favour the grant is ordered to be renewed shall execute within one month of the communication to him of the orders, a Kabuliyat for payment of Hukamnama and other fees payable in accordance with sub-secs. (2) and (3).2. ....... ........ .... .... ..... ....3. ......... ......... ..... .....amount payable by the petitioner, according to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act, came to Rs. 30,000/- and the respondent-State demanded this sum. Before, however, the date of the order according recognition and granting renewal in favour of the petitioner, the Rajasthan Act of 1952, had been passed and having received the assent of the President on February 13, 1952, came into force on publication in the Gazette on February 16, 1952, and under S. 4 of this Act, whose terms have been set out already, the liability on the part of Jagirdars to pay "all tribute" to Government got extinguished.

Reasoning: It therefore becomes necessary for us to examine the reasoning upon which the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court reached a conclusion adverse to the contention of the petitioner now before us.The precise question which now arises for our decision came up before the High Court of Rajasthan in 1955 on facts exactly parallel with the case before us and a Bench of that Court held in a case reported as Narpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1955) 5 Raj 534 that hukamnama and the fees payable under S. 190 of the Marwar Act were not within S. 4 (a) of the Rajasthan Act. Consequently, the arguments on either side before us took the form of either supporting the reasoning contained in that judgment or in disputing its correctness.It therefore becomes necessary for us to examine the reasoning upon which the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court reached a conclusion adverse to the contention of the petitioner now beforetherefore the definition in S. 2 (r) concluded with the words other charges of a similar nature, it must necessarily be held that these general words should be confined to charges which were also recurring. The hukamnama and other dues payable under S. 190 of the Marwar Act, however, were not recurring payments and were in consideration of the rule exercising his discretion to recognise a succession and grant renewal of the Jagir in favour of the next heir. In other words, these were payments due to the ruler in recognition of his sovereign right to the ownership of the land which was statutorily embodied in Ss. 169-170 of the Marwarthe word were understood in its ordinary dictionary meaning without any statutory definition, learned counsel added, the incidence of recurrence would not be a necessary attribute of the concept of a tribute. The submission was that the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court erred in confining the meaning of tribute to the enumerated payments and "other charges of a similar nature", without taking into account the fact that this was an inclusive and not an exhaustive or even an illustrative definition. We see force in these submissions and it must also be said that the argument in this form and the construction of S. 2 (r) from this aspect has not been considered by the learned Judges of the Rajasthan Highfrom the usual express saying contained in the opening words of S. 2 that the definitions set out are to be applied "unless the context otherwise requires", the meaning of the word tribute has to be ascertained from a consideration of the various provisions of the Act and not merely from S. 4 (a) of the Act read in the light of the definition. It would be seen that in ultimate analysis the question of construction posed for our decision may be thus set out: The four specific enumerated dues in the definition in S. 2(r) are recurring annual payments. "Other charges of a like nature" which follows this enumeration, would obviously partake of that character and they would also have to be similarly annual and recurring. This was the basis of the decision of the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and the correctness of this view up to this point cannot be and has not been disputed. The definition, however, being inclusive and not "meaning" these it is said it must "include" something else. It must however be added that the possibility cannot be ignored that the definition was made inclusive out of caution and with a view not to exclude any payment which jagirdars were making or were under an obligation to make, to Government, seeing that the Act was to apply to an integrated State composed of several States in which there might have been great diversity of nomenclature in designating these payments, and so as not to exclude any payment which would squarely fall within the category regarding which provision was made in the operative portion of theword tribute has apparently no equivalent in the local languages, so that it was obviously used as a convenient and compendious expression to designate certain imposts which were levied by the rulers of the several States which integrated to form the State of Rajasthan, Further, this circumstance should obviously induce some caution before the dictionary meaning of the English word tribute is treated as expressing the intention of the framers of the Rajasthanwill be seen that this section speaks of tribute payable for the year specified-1951-52 or 1950-51- and it is obvious that the tribute here referred to could only be the recurring payments like those enumerated in the definition in S. 2 (r) to which could be attributed the character of being a payment for a specific year. Besides, it will be seen that under S. 8 (b) the land revenue payable for the seven agricultural years 1952-53 to 1959-60 is to be either a fraction of the annual rental income or "the amount of the tribute which would be payable by the Jagirdar for the year 1950-51 whichever is greater". Surely it would be most unreasonable to hold that if during the year `1950-51 a Jagirdar made a payment of hukamnama this ad hoc payment should be treated as part of the tribute for that year and the Jagirdar made liable to pay sums including hukamnama for the seven years 1952-53 to 1959-60.Notwithstanding therefore that the definition in S. 2 (r) of the Rajasthan Act is inclusive it appears to us from an examination of the meaning of the word as used in the operative provisions of the Act, that it could refer only to recurring payments which could be said to be attributable to particular years and not to the type of ad hoc payments of which hukamnamas and patta-fees are examples. It might very well be that the words at the end of S. 2(r) "other charges of a similar nature" might not exhaust all the payments which a tribute connotes but still if the rest of the Act indicates unmistakably the intention, that the word tribute has been used in a special sense taking into account the law and usage obtaining in the locality, these cannot be disregarded in favour of a wider construction based merely upon the dictionary meaning of the expression. We need hardly add that the provision to which we have adverted should suffice to show that the construction put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner would work to the grave disadvantage of the Jagirdars and would cause them deprivation which could never have been intended. We have thus reached the same conclusion as the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, though on a different line of reasoning.