- (1.)APPEALS No. 40, 43 and 45 of 1960 District Udaipur have been filed under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act against one and the same decision of the Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 8. 4. 60 whereby the claim of the ex-jagirdar Amet was finalised under sec. 32 (2) of the Act. As identical questions of law and fact are involved in all these appeals they shall be decided by this judgment. Appeal No. 43 - This appeal has been filed by the State Government and challenges the decision of the lower court on one point only. To appreciate the argument raised by the learned Government Advocate we may refer to the relevant facts from a decision of the Board dated 28. 1. 60, to which one of us was a party. That was an appeal filed by Shri Govind Singh against Shri Jai Singh and others and the main point involved therein was as to whether the amount of Rs. 5,500/- which was being paid by Thikana Amet to Thikana Meja should be deducted from the gross income of Thikana Amet or not. The patta issued by the former Mewar State in 1934 was examined and it was observed that on its basis Thikana Amet was required to pay Rs. 5,500/- annually to the State Exchequer and. the same was to be paid to Thikana Meja from the State Exchequer in two instalments laid down in the Patta. It was decided by the Board that the provisions of para4 (ii) of the Second Schedule of the Act were clear on the point whereby any sums of recurring nature due to the Government from the jagir-dar for the basic year shall be deducted from his gross income for determining his net income. It was held that the payment in dispute namely of Rs. 5,500/- by Thikana Amet to Meja was a sum of this nature due to the Government from the jagirdar and hence liable to be deducted from the gross income of Thikana Amet. In other words, in that appeal it was decided by the Board that the sum of Rs. 5,500/- being a sum of a recurring nature due to the State Government from the jagirdar deserved to be deducted from the gross income of the Thikana Amet. The judgment of the learned Jagir Commissioner which now forms the subject matter of this appeal gives effect to this decision of the Board. After calculating the gross income of the Thikana Amet a sum of Rs. 5,500/- has been deducted therefrom. The learned Government Advocate has argued that there is no objection whatsoever to the deduction of this amount and that his objection is confined to the manner alone in which this deduction has been made. The contention is that this deduction should have been made from the rental income of the jagirdar Amet and not under Sec. 22 (1) (e) of the Act. This contention is obviously untenable. The rental income of the Jagirdar has to be the rental income as calculated in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec, 6 and 7 of the Act. The deduction of Rs. 5,500/- is nothing but a deduction and cannot be confused with any reduction in the assessed rents of the jagir lands. Obviously the manner in which the learned Government Advocate would like this deduction to be made has no basis whatsoever in law. The deduction can be made only after calculation of the total gross income and it has been done so by the learned Jagir Commissioner. There is thus no substance in this appeal and the same shall hereby stand rejected.
(2.)APPEAL No. 45 has been filed by the ex-jagirdar Amet Shri Govind Singh and objections have been raised to a number of points, each one of which shall be dealt with and decided by us separately. (a) Reduction of Rs. 871. 4. 6 in the rental income. The contention is that no objection was raised by the Legal Adviser and yet the lower court reduced the income by this amount. The reason is obvious. The dispute relates to lands lying within a tank bed. The claim of the jagirdar is based on actual rents realised by him whereas what has been allowed to him is the sum total of the assessed rents. The objection is thus untenable and shall stand rejected. (b) Rs. 62. 4. 0 as ugai cess. Much need not be said on the point. This is evidently a cess and was rightly rejected by the lower court. (c) Rs. 134/. . . income from non-agricultural uses of land. The contention is that this income should have been allowed even though it may have accrued from occupied land. This is untenable. From occupied lands what can be allowed only is income from rents as laid down in para 2 clause (a) of the Second Schedule of the Act. This contention too is without any substance. (d) Rejection of 9/10 income of sale of abadi lands and residential houses. The lower court has allowed 1/10 of the income as it does represent a fair share of the value of the land. The objection is untenable. (e) Tentative inclusion of Rs. 562. 06 np. The learned Jagir Commissioner has observed in this connection that instructions have been issued to the Kamdar Thikana to have this income verified and if he fails to do so then this amount shall be deducted at the time of the issue of the bonds. This is evidently an erroneous proposition. A decision under sec. 32 (2) of the Act is a final determination of the claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant and it cannot be interfered with in the manner indicated by the learned Jagir Commissioner. The learned Jagir Commissioner should hold such enquiries as he may consider necessary before coming to a final decision and it would definitely be wrong to allow decisions to be interfered with by subsequent enquiries. (f) Tribute amount should be Rs. 8274. 50 np. and not Rs. 9285. 56 np. In support of this contention a decision of the Rajasthan High Court ` in D. B. Civil Writ No. 23 decided on 16. 8. 55 - Rawat Govind Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan has been produced before us. Before any final decision is taken on the point it is imperative to examine the judgment of the High Court as it is the duty of all the subordinate courts to give full effect to it. This aspect was ignored probably on the ground that the judgment was not produced, although it has been argued before us that an opportunity to produce it was allowed by the lower court. Whatever may be the reason for this omission we think that this omission ought to be rectified and the question of tribute should be decided only after an examination of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court ` referred to above. (g) Deductions: - The contention is that the manner in which this point has been decided is open to serious objection. The learned Jagir Commissioner has observed that the Department concerned has not been able to produce any revised Form No. 10. Hence the full amount of Rs. 13,234. 81 np. be deducted from the compensation and if eventually the jagirdar is able to produce evidence to the contrary he may be allowed to draw that amount. This decision is open to two objections. In the first place it violates the principle that all necessary enquiries should precede a decision and after a firm and final decision had been given it should not be allowed to be interfered in any manner. The second is that any deductions to be legal and valid must be on the basis of Form No. 19 certificate issued by the Collector. The contention of the appellant on the point therefore is perfectly clear. A certificate signed by Deputy Collector Jagir does not amount to a certificate signed by the Collector.
This appeal, therefore, deserves to be decided accordingly. Appeal No. 40 has been filed by ex-jagirdar Meja and his contention is that as the ex-jagirdar Amet had not paid the annual fixed amount of Rs. 5500/- for a number of years the entire outstanding amount should be deducted from the compensation. It was also urged that at one stage the learned Jagir Commissioner had • approached the Government for issue of a certificate in Form No. 10 by the Collector but did not take any proceedings thereafter. It was also argued that the Collector was requested to issue a certificate but he refused to do so on the ground that as the matter had been finally decided by the Jagir Commissioner it would serve no useful purpose to issue a certificate thereafter. It is perfectly clear that any deductions to be validly made from the compensation and rehabilitation grant of a jagirdar must be done within the four corners of the Act itself. Unless there is a certificate in Form No. 10 in respect of items covered by sec. 22 (1) (e) of the Act no action as regards deduction can be taken. However, while discussing the appeal filed by the ex-jagirdar Amet we have held that the matter needs further examination with regard to the deductions ordered by the lower court. After this remand it would naturally be open for the State Government or the Collector to take such action with regard to the claim of the ex-jagirdar Meja as they may consider necessary. The remand though ordered on other grounds would be available for the ex-jagirdar Meja as well to seek such remedy as may be available to him under the law.

The sum total of these discussions would, therefore, be that appeal No. 43 filed by the State Government shall stand rejected. Appeal No. 45 filed by the ex-jagirdar Amet shall be allowed in part only and the judgment of the lower court in so far as it relates to tribute, deductions and Rs. 562. 06 np. shall be set aside and the case shall be remanded back to it with the direction that these items shall be tried and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above, the decision of the lower court standing confirmed in all other respects. After a decision afresh on the 3 items referred to above the claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant shall be determined again. Appeal No. 40 filed by the ex-jagirdar Meja shall be allowed in part only and it shall be made clear to the parties concerned that as the question of deductions shall be re-examined by the lower court with regard to the deductions made already it shall be open to the ex-jagirdar Meja to take such steps as may be open to him under the law for giving effect to his claim. .

;