- (1.)THIS appeal has been presented against order dated 26-11-1966 of the Jagir Commissioner. The facts of the case are that the Jagir Commissioner decided the compensation claim of Jagir Indergarh by his order dated 7-5-1964 and declared that the net amount payable to the Jagirdar was Rs. 3,72,933. 25. The Jagirdar appealed to the Board of Revenue and the following items were listed for arguments : 1. Income from boating. 2. Income from sale of land. 3. Income from salt compensation. 4. Administrative charges. 5. Government dues.
(2.)THE first three items were rejected by the Board of Revenue. THE fourth was not pressed. Regarding the fifth it was noted that there was an application from the jagirdar for debt reduction under the provisions of the Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act, but the Jagir Commissioner had hot considered this application. THE case was therefore remanded with the direction that the Jagir Commissioner should make a fresh award after taking the appellants application for Debt Reduction into consideration. In compliance the Jagir Commissioner issued a fresh award on 26-11-66 and the amount of debt shown as recoverable in form No. 10 issued by the Finance Department of Rajasthan was reduced by Rs. 67,360-55. THE State Government have come in appeal against this.
We have heard the Govt. Advocate and the Advocate for the respondent Jagirdar and have perused the record. The Government Advocate contended that only a Court could scale down debts in accordance with Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act and in 1964 R. L. W. page 83 (Bhanupratap Singh vs. State) it has been held that the Jagir Commissioner was not a Court and in Chandra Kant Rao vs. State roported in 1967 R. R. D. page 165 it had been laid down that the Jagir Commissioner was not a Court and is not competent to proceed under the provisions of sec. 3 or grant relief under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act. It was further contended that there was no suit for recovery of debt and no decree under Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act and so the order of Jagir Commissioner for scaling down the Debt was bad and deserved to be quashed.

The Advocate for the respondent Jagirdar drew attention to the previous judgment of the Board of Revenue in this case and stated that as the Government had not moved against this it was estopped from now saying that the Debt Reduction could not be considered by the Jagir Commissioner. It was further contended that the Jagir Commissioner was a Court and sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act clearly laid down that any officer or authority holding an enquiry or hearing an appeal under the Jagir Resumption Act should have the powers of a Civil Court and should be deemed to be a Civil Court. It was stated that sec. 3 of the Jagir Resumption Act applied to general clauses Act to the interpretation of the Jagir Resumption Act and so the definition of Court in General Clauses Act applied to the Jagir Commissioner. It was further stated that u/s 43 Jagir Resumption Act Officers working under the provisions of the Act were public servants within the meaning of sec. 21 Indian Penal Code. The Jagir Commissioner had to give awards judicially and in 1959 R. L W. page 466 it was held that there was no reason to treat debts from Government differently from private debts and certain exemptions in Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act had been struck down. A. I. R. 1964 S. C. page 1663 which upheld the above judgment of the High Court with regard to this point was also cited. It was contended that the debt of the Government was a decree. The judgment in 1967 R. R. D. page 165 was assailed. It was pointed out that Rule 45 of the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules provided by law for the trial of a suit in a revenue Court. It was stated that the Jagir Commissioner was perfectly right and within his powers in scaling down the Govt. debt in accordance with Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act.

We have considered the matter. In 1964 R. L. W. page 83 it has been held that proceedings for the settlement of compensation before Jagir Commissioner are quasi-judicial and neither the Evidence Act nor the Code of Civil Procedure applies to them. It has been held that enquiry u/s 32 of the Jagir Resumption Act should not be conducted in the manner provided for the trial of a suit in a revenue Court and rule 45 had no application to inquiries u/s 32. In 1967 RRD. page 165 this very rule was relied on and it was further held that the Jagir Commissioner was not competent to proceed u/secs. 3 and 8 of the Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act. The Jagir Commissioner was held to be a tribunal and was expected to exercise judicial discretion; but he was not a Court.

The judgment of the Board of Revenue was given after a difference of opinion between Members and the learned Third Member considered all the statute law and the case law applicable to the case. It has come to our notice that the judgment in Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. the State has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It has therefore to be regarded as settled law that in considering compensation u/s. 32 of the Jagir Resumption Act, the Jagir Commissioner is not a Court,

The question of estoppel raised by the respondent also is unsustainable. The orders of the Board of Revenue when remanding the case were that the application of the Jagirdar regarding debt reduction should be taken into consideration. There was no order that the debt should be scaled down.

We do not find any reason to dissent from the view taken in Chandra Kant Rao vs. State, it was based on the Bhanu Pratap Singh case in a large measure and also relied on other rulings. Indeed relief was afforded by the High Court to the Dudu Thikanedar on his application and the State Government appealed against it to the Supreme Court without success.

The order of the Jagir Commissioner is therefore against the law laid down by the High Court of Rajasthan and the Board of Revenue. We accept the appeal of the State Government and quashing the order of the Jagir Commissioner direct that the debt of the State Government be recovered according to form No. 10. .

;