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

2. The jagir of respondent No. 1, Rao Baldev Singh was resumed with effect from August 15, 1954 under the provisions of the 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 Section 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, Ganganager 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 kbudkasht 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 kill 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 Sec. 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 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 S. 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 Section 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 Sec 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.

Court's reasoning:
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.