Case: State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Ors Vs. Sardar D.K. Jadav

2. In Samvat 1885, the Ruler of the erstwhile Gwalior State conferred on Shri Bhavdeo Mishra the predecessor-in-title of the respondent - the jagir of Mauza Siroli, situated in Pargana Gwalior. After the issue of the notification under Section 3 of the Abolition Act, all the property in the jagir including jagir lands, forests, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds etc. stood vested in the State under Section 4 of the Abolition Act. Under Section 5 (c) of the Abolition Act, all tanks, trees, private wells and buildings in or on occupied land belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person were excluded from vesting. Section 2 (1) (ix) of the Abolition Act defines "occupied land" as followsAfter the abolition of jagirs under the Abolition Act, proceedings were initiated for determining the compensation payable to the respondent and the same was determined at a sum of Rs. 22.293 and odd out of which certain loans were deducted and the amount of Rs. 3,586 and odd was paid. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) Act No. 20 of 1959) came into force on October 2, 1959 and S. 251Appeal No.1244 of 1967 :9. The material facts of this case are almost similar to those in Civil Appeal No.1245 of 1967 and for the reasons given in that judgment,

Court's reasoning:
In our opinion the argument put forward on behalf of the appellants is well founded and must be accepted as correct.It is manifest that under S. 17 of the Abolition Act only those disputes which pertain to the jagirdari title or right in jagir lands already resumed under S. 3 of the Abolition Act, can be raised. The section also contemplates that the disputes must be raised during the course of an inquiry for assessment of compensation by the Jagir Commissioner. It should be noticed that S. 17 is included in Ch. III which deals with compensation which the Government is liable to pay to every jagirdar whose jagir land has been resumed under S. 3. It follows therefore that the inquiry made by the Jagir Commissioner under S. 17 on the question of title is only for the purpose of enabling him to pay compensation to the person who in his opinion is entitled to receive it. In our opinion, the scope of the inquiry under S. 17 only relates to disputes with regard to rival claimants to jagirdari title or right in jagirdari lands already resumed under S. 3 of the Abolition Act. In other words, the inquiry by the Jagir Commissioner or the decision of the State Government under S. 17 does not embrace within its scope any dispute as to whether any particular property falls within S. 4 (1) (a) read with S. 5 of the Abolition act and whether it has or has not in consequence vested in the State Government by the notification issued under S. 3 of the Abolition Act. It is also necessary to add that the inquiry contemplated under S. 17 by the Jagir Commissioner relates to compensation to be paid to the jagirdar whose jagir is vested in the State Government and once the compensation is determined and paid, no further inquiry under S. 17 is contemplated. We are accordingly of the opinion that the High Court was in error in holding that S. 17 of the Abolition Act is applicable to the case and that the dispute raised by the respondent should have been determined in accordance with the procedure envisaged in S. 17 of the Abolition Act.It is well established that where the jurisdiction of an administrative authority depends upon a preliminary finding of fact the High Court is entitled, in a proceeding for a writ to determine upon its own independent judgment whether or not that finding is correct.