MOORTI SHRI VENKATESHJI MAHARAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the deity Shri Venkateshji Maharaj of the temple of Shri Laxmanji Maharaj (old) situated at Bharatpur, through its Mahant, and by it the determination of compensation of the maufi lands attached to the temple consequent to resumption under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, hereinafter to be referred to as the 'act', is questioned.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are these - THE lands in maufi attached to the temple were situated in villages Bhara and Barwara. THEre was also a cash grant of Rs. 950/- in respect of village Panhora. THE State of Rajasthan issued notifications for resumption of the various jagir lands in Rajasthan u/sec. 21 of the Act from time to time and, according to the petitioner, the maufi lands attached to the temple were resumed by a notification dated 16-7-60. THE resumption was to take effect from 1-8-60. In pursuance of this notification, the petitioner put in its claim for compensation before the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur. While doing so, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that as the Jagir lands of the petitioner were not settled lands within the meaning of the notification dated 16-7 60 they could not be resumed. In the alternative, it was submitted that the compensation be determined on the basis of the rental income from the said maufi lands. It first put in the rental income from the maufi lands at Rs. 6,381. 66p but later on, the claim for compensation was sought to be revised to Rs. 16,281. 66. This included the cash grant of Rs. 950/- in respect of village Pachora. It was submitted by the petitioner that on the earlier occasion the compensation was claimed at a lower figure due to some clerical mistake in the absence of proper data before it. THE petitioner maintains that the Jagir Commissioner did not accept this claim, but on the basis of his own verification made a provisional award on 20-4-61 fixing the rental income of the petitioner at Rs. 3,659. 92 P. A notice of this provisional award was given to the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner preferred its objections against that award on 25-5-61 reiterating therein that as the maufi lands in question were unsettled within the meaning of Sec. 2 (n) of the Act, the compensation had not been properly determined in the provisional award. It was also emphasised that the previous claim at a lower figure was submitted by the petitioner due to a clerical error and it was prayed that the same be treated as withdrawn. THE petitioner proceeds to say that these objections were accepted by the Jagir Commissioner by his order dated 25-5-61 and it was held that the petitioners maufi lands were not settled within the meaning of the Act and Jagir Commissioner further directed that the compensation payable to the petitioner be determined according to the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act. THE Jagir Commissioner consequently asked the Deputy Collector (Jagir), Bharatpur to re-determine the rental income of the maufi lands belonging to the petitioner in light of the income for the years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of this order of the Jagir Commissioner, the Assistant Collector (Jagir), Bharatpur, went into the matter and held that the maufi lands in question were not settled. He therefore realised that the assessment of the rental income of these lands was thus necessary according to the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act. According to the petitioner, after making necessary inquiry the Assistant Collector (Jagir) submitted his recommendations to the Jagir Commissioner and he reported that the rental income of the petitioner's maufi lands in the three years varied between Rs. 16,000/-and Rs. 18,000/- per year. When the matter thus came up again for the consideration of the Jagir Commissioner for the giving of a final award about the compensation payable to the petitioner the Jagir Commissioner 'did not accept the recommendations of the Assistant Collector (Jagir) and he determined the rental income of the petitioner at Rs. 6281. 66 P. by his order dated 204-10-61. THE Jagir Commissioner this time did not accept the position that the maufi lands of petitioner were unsettled. According to him, the land revenue of those lands had been settled and the rent was to be a arrived at a certain multiple of the land revenue which was settled. Aggrieved by the order of the Jagir Commissioner, the petitioner went in appeal to the Board of Revenue,: but was not successful. THE Board agreed with the Jagir Commissioner that as the land revenue of the maufi lands had been settled and as the rent could not be charged by the Jagirdar exceeding three times the assessed land, revenue, the rent also would be taken" to have been settled. It is this order of the Revenue Board passed in appeal which is challenged before us.