- (1.)THIS appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by Dadiji Sahiba Smt. Nand Kanwarji of Thikana Garhi against an order of the Jagir Commissioner dated 10. 7. 59 regarding maintenance allowance of the appellant.
(2.)WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The validity of the decision of the learned Jagir Commissioner has been assailed before us on two grounds and we shall deal with each one of them separately. The first contention of the appellant is that the maintenance allowance admissible to her should have been allowed in bonds and not through annual payments. It has also been argued that the other two maintenance holders of the Thikana have been allowed bonds and that the denial of a similar treatment to her amounts to an undue exercise of discretion. It has been replied on behalf of the Thikana that no maintenance holder can, under the provision of the law, be allowed maintenance in form of bonds. WE have bestowed our careful consideration upon this aspect of the case. Sec. 27 (1) of the Act lays down that any person who, under any existing jagir law, is entitled to receive a maintenance allowance out of the income of any jagir, shall be entitled to receive, out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to the Jagirdar, such amount for maintenance annually as the Jagir Commissioner may fix after taking into consideration the various factors laid down in the section. This provision, therefore, unequivocally lays down that maintenance allowance shall be fixed annually. The reason is not far to seek. Compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to a Jagirdar or a co-sharer is in lieu of the resumed grant. The object of allowing maintenance is to ensure means of subsistence for the dependant. Payment through bonds, which are negotiable, may in some cases frustrate the very object of allowing maintenance, where the entire amount can be collected immediately though at some discount. Sec. 27 (7) provides a further corroboration to this line of reasoning. It is laid down therein that the Government may in the case of a widow maintenance holder allow maintenance allowance out of the Consolidated fund of the State during her life time even after the full compensation and rehabilitation grant have been paid to the Jagirdar. Sec. 35 (2) of the Act also provides that the amount of maintenance allowance determined under sec. 32 shall be deducted and paid from every instalment referred to in sub-sec. (1) and the remaining amount of the instalment shall be payable by the Government to the Jagirdar. Sec. 32 (c) may also be referred in this connection, which lays down that the amount of annual maintenance allowance shall be determined under the provision of this section. In other words none of these provisions referred to above lay down that the maintenance allowance shall be paid for the entire full 15 years in a lump sum or through bonds which can be encashed at once. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to sec. 34 (2) of the Act, which, however, is irrelevant. It simply lays down that the amount shall be payable in the same number of instalment as the compensation payable to the Jagirdar. WE may, however, refer to the Compensation and Rehabilitation Bond Rules. Rule 3 lays down that the compensation and rehabilitation grant including the additional rehabilitation grant finally determined as payable to a Jagirdar or a co-sharer under the Act, will be paid in cash or a negotiable bond, or partly in cash or partly in bond as the Jagir Commissioner may decide on the application of the Jagirdar concerned. A maintenance holder or the maintenance allowance payable to a maintenance holder is not included in this rule. The word 'jagirdar' has been defined in the Act as a person recognised as a Jagirdar under any existing Jagir law including a grantee of Jagir land from a Jagirdar. Obviously, a maintenance holder of a Jagirdar cannot be covered by this definition. Thus the clear position that emerges from an examination of these various provisions is that neither the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act contained any provision for payment of maintenance allowance to a maintenance holder in negotiable bonds. The only method laid down for this mode of payment is by annual instalments or even by half yearly instalments where the compensation is to be paid through half yearly instalments. Maintenance allowance would become due annually and cannot be paid all atonce. The objection of the appellant on the point is, therefore, invalid and stands rejected.
Shri Narain Behari Mathur on being required to show cause as to why the decision of the learned Jagir Commissioner with regard to payment of maintenance allowance in favour of Maji Sahiba and Raniji Sahiba of the Thikana be not revised so as to bring it in conformity with the decision given in respect of the appellant Dadiji Sahiba, frankly stated that the decision was clearly untenable and that both of his clients were themselves anxious to see that maintenance allowance should be paid to them through annual instalments and not in bonds. We, therefore, accept this request and the decision of the learned Jagir Commissioner shall stand amended accordingly.

The other contention raised on behalf of the appellant related to the various deductions that have been made out of the maintenance allowance payable to the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Thikana has frankly conceded his inability to show any provision of law whereby deductions can be made from the maintenance allowance in the manner done by the learned lower court. No sum which is legally due to a Jagirdar by virtue of his rights in the jagir land in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the agricultural year in which the date of resumption falls, can be recovered by him in the manner laid down in sec. 22 (2) (b) of the Act. All arrears of revenue, cesses or other dues in respect of any jagir land due from Jagirdar, and all loans advanced by the Government or the Court of Wards to the Jagirdar shall be recoverable from the Jagirdar under sec. 34 read with sec. 22 of the Act. But no such provision is to be found in respect of the dues or loans outstanding against a maintenance holder of the Jagirdar. The obvious inference, therefore, is that such sums cannot be recovered from the maintenance allowance in the manner done by the learned lower court.

The result lis that we allow this appeal in part and direct that the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner regarding deductions made from the maintenance allowance of the appellant shall be set aside and no deductions shall be made from the maintenance allowance in the manner directed by the lower court. The order of the learned Jagir Commissioner as regards the payment of maintenance allowance through bonds to Maji Sahiba and Raniji Sahiba of the Thikana shall also be modified to the extent that the maintenance allowance fixed for them shall be payable through annual or half yearly instalments as decided in the case of the appellant. No interest shall be payable on the maintenance allowance. In all other respects the decision of the lower court shall stand confirmed. .

;