Decided on October 15,1960


Cited Judgements :-



- (1.)THIS appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed against an order of the Deputy Collector Jagir, Kota, passed under sec. 35 read with sec. 38 of the Act.
(2.)WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant in respect of the Jagir in dispute was filed by Shri Durgadan Jagirdar himself. But before full payment could be received by him he died. A question arose under sec. 38 of the Act as to the person eligible to receive the payment and it has been decided that Shri Mahipat Singh minor is the heir of the deceased jagirdar and is therefore entitled to receive the compensation. The appellant Madhosingh an adopted son of the deceased jagirdar objected to the payment of compensation to Mahipat Singh. His objections were rejected. Subsequently an application was presented by him for action being taken under sec. 35 (3) of the Act, The learned lower court held that as Smt. Umadevi is the natural guardian by virtue of being the mother of the minor no further action under sec. 35 (3) is needed. Hence this appeal.
The decision of the lower court has been challenged before us on two grounds. We shall deal with each of them separately. The first is that the proviso to sec. 35 (3) (b) lays down that in cases in which the question of guardianship is in dispute the Collector shall apply to the District Judge having jurisdiction to determine such question and to appoint a guardian of the minor for purposes of this section. We have given our careful consideration to this question and find that there is no substance in it. In the first place the enquiry contemplated by the Collector within sec. 35 (2) (b) has for its object the determination of the natural guardian of the minor. Obviously where the natural guardian of the minor is beyond the scope of any controversy this sub-section shall have no application. In the present case the minor is in the guardianship of his mother and no further enquiry would thus be needed. Secondly, even if this aspect be ignored it is obvious that secs. 35 and 38 are entirely independent of each other and the provisions given in section 35 can have no applicability to a case filed under sec. 38. Sec. 35 relates to payment of compensation. Sub-sec. (1) lays down that after the final determination of the compensation and the deductions to be made from it the balance shall be divided into 15 equal annual instalments or at the option of the jagirdar into 30 equal half-yearly instalments. Sub-sec. (2) lays down that the amounts determined under clauses (b), (c) and (e) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32 shall be deducted and paid to each of the persons entitled thereto. Then follows sub-sec. (3) dealing with cases where compensation under this Act is payable to a minor or a person suffering from a legal disability. This provision has, therefore, reference to cases where compensation is payable to a minor jagirdar or to a minor person under sec. 32, cl. (1 ). The present case is not of that type. Here the jagirdar to whom compensation was to be paid was not minor. He was a major and filed his compensation claim after resumption of the jagir. He could not get the full payment of the compensation amount and hence sec. 38 would govern the case. A payment under this sec. is to be made to the person found by the Collector to be the heir of the deceased jagirdar according to the personal law. This has already been done in favour of the minor. This difference will be found in the Rules framed under the Act. R-39 (2) is intended to cover cases under sec. 3 5 (3) (b ). R. 42 (a) deals with enquiry into cases of succession on death of a jagirdar. Thus the lower court was correct in holding that sec. 35 (3) had no application to the present case.

The other contention is that the Deputy Collector Jagir had no jurisdiction to decide this case as sec. 38 of the Act authorised the Collector only. It was also argued that as the Collector had made no delegation of powers and as the delegation has been done only by the State Government or by the Jagir Commissioner it cannot be deemed to be a valid delegation within the meaning of sec. 42 (a) of the Act. Sec. 48 (1) of the Act authorises the State Government to make Rules for the delegation of powers conferred on any officer under this Act. The delegation of the powers of a Collector under sec. 38 upon a Deputy Collector is, therefore, valid within this provision.

The result is that there is no substance in this appeal and it is hereby rejected. .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.