MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1968-7-15
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on
July 12,1968
MAHENDRA SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)A Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has made a reference for the opinion of Larger Bench according to Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Revenue Act. This has been listed before us and we have heard the Advocate for Thikana Achrol, as also the Government Advocate. The Advocate General was specially asked to address us. We have perused the record.
(2.)THIKANA Achrol of Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh was resumed on 1-7-1954 namely Smt. 2011. Settlement in this THIKANA had been introduced with effect from Smt. 2008. As the year of resumption was 1954, the basic year was 1953 namely Smt. 2010. After the settlement of the THIKANA had been done in Smt. 2008 (equivalent to 1951) the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955 subsequently reduced the settlements rates. The revised rates were made applicable with retrospective effect from Smt. 2008 (1951), the year of previous enforcement. For purposes of calculation of compensation, the Jagir Commissioner took the revised rates as his basis and made an award on November 13, 1962.
Thikana Achrol presented an appeal before the Board of Revenue and contended among other things that the compensation should have been calculated according to original rent rates enforced from Smt, 2008. The Division Bench, which heard the appeal of the Thikana considered the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner on many grounds; but for the time being confined its observations to only one point of the memo of appeal and framed the following reference which is to be considered by us: - "whether in the facts and circumstances narrated above, compensation would be paid to ex-jagirdars' legal representatives on the basis for income from rents actually received for Smt. 2010 or according to rates revised subsequently and applied retrospectively ?"
The Advocate for the appellant Thikana stated that his client had actually realised Lagan on the basis of rent rates introduced from Smt. 2008. These had been finalised and enforced from that year in the whole of Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh including Thikana Achrol. U/s 6 of the Jagir Resumption Act read with Secs, 26, 31 and the Second Schedule of the same, the income of his client in the basic year Smt. 2010 should be the yardstick for compensation. The deductions under the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 would not affect the basis of the compensation he was entitled to. The Government might reduce the rates in favour of the cultivators as much as they liked, but the jagirdar's compensation must be calculated on the rents of the basic year. 1966 R. R. D. page 245 (Ranjeet Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan) was relied upon.
It was also contended that the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act had ceased to have effect from 1-1-1956 and as the review of rent rates in regard to Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh had been sanctioned on 27-5-56, the change in the rent rates was illegal, as having been done under no law. A. I. R. 1954 Saurashtra page 77 (Raghavji vs. Modi) was cited as holding that when an Act is repealed, it must be considered except as to transactions past and closed as if it had never existed. A. I. R. 1951 Allahabad page 203 ruled that after the repeal of the Govt. of India Act, no provision of it could be enforced. A. I. R. 1957 Rajasthan page 220, is concerned with a different matter, but the trend is the same. Copy of Government order No. F. 12 (90)86/56 dated 27-6-56 from the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to the Registrar, Board of Revenue, was produced. The Advocate General stated that though the reference spoke of income from rents actually received, in fact, the rents actually received were not criterion, but according to clause 2 (a) of the Second Schedule of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, the income from land revenue under rents should accrue to the Jagirdar in the basic year should have been the desideratum. The Advocate General contended that the legislature have not contemplated compensation on the basis of rents actually received.
The Advocate for appellant Thikanedar stated that the underlying intention of the reference was decision of the question whether compensation was to be paid on the basis of rent rates sanctioned in 1951 or those revised in 1956. Both the parties argued on the question of compensation on the line described above.
We take the point of the expiry of the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act first. The Advocate General produced Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival) Act of 1956 (Act No. XVI of 1965) and stated that this revival) which repeated most of the language of the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, filled the gap created by the ceasing of effect of the Validation Act of 1955. It was further pointed out that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival) Repeal Act of 1957 (Act No. 37 of 1957) repealed the Revival Act and so there was no question of lack of jurisdiction in the Government when it passed the order of 27. 6. 56.
The Advocate for the appellant Thikana thereupon further argued on this point and contended that the Revival Act only regularised action taken by the State Government from 1-1-1956; neither the Board of Revenue nor the Settlement Commissioner or any Settlement Officer, had any jurisdiction under the law to make proposals The proposal of the Board regarding Jamua Ramgarh had been forwarded on 28-1-56 and this action was without jurisdiction. It was also argued that the change introduced in the definition of the word "settled" by Act No. 36 of 1957 could not apply to his client as it had been introduced in the definition of the word "settled" by Act, No. 36 of 1957 could not apply to his client as it had been introduced with effect from 29-11-1957, while the jagir of his client was resumed on 1-7-1954. The definition had not been made retrospectively applicable.
The Advocate General replied that only the action of the Government required to be regularised. It was not necessary that actions done under the orders of the Government should be validated separately. It was also contended that there was no need of retrospective application to a change of definition.
So far as this particular point is concerned, the pleas of the Advocate General are definitely tenable. The Rent Rates (Revival) Act of 1956, and the Rent Rates (Revival repealed Act of 1957 fully covered the administrative acts previous to 27-6-56 and the Government order issued on that date. That the definition of the term "settled" was not made retrospectively applicable is of no significance. We now come to the central issue. On this the Advocate General pointed out that clause 2 (a) of the Second Schedule of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 reads as below : - "2 Gross income - The gross income of a Jagirdar for the basic year shall be the total income from his jagir lands under the following heads: (a) Income from land revenue and rents (from occupied lands) (which accrued to him, or in relation to jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him but for resumption, thereof' He stated that accrual was a very different thing from the actual receipt or an income, an amount might accrue to a person in one year, but actually it might be paid in the next year or even years after that. Hence, stated the Advocate General, even if the jagirdar had realised rents according to the sanction of 1951, these had not accrued to him, because according to Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. , Sec. 8, whenever revised proposals were sanctioned by the State Government, the rent rates previously sanctioned should be deemed to have been cancelled and the new rates were to take effect from such date as the State Government, might specify. In asmuch as the directions of the Government with regard to the rent rates governed by the order of 7-6-56 were that the new rent rates should take effect from 1-7-51, the Advocate General contended that the rates sanctioned by the 1951 order had not accrued to the jagirdar at all, but the rent rates of 1956 were the basis of the accrued; hence in spite of the fact that the record of rights etc, were prepared from 1951 onwards according to sanction of 1951, the retrospective effector order of 1956 made the subsequent rates, the proper basis for compen-sation to be paid to the jagirdar. 1961 R. R. D. page 30 was cited as holding that the expressions 'accrue' and 'yield' both go to denote in the ultimate sense one and the same thing, some thing going or arising out of a certain thing. In the ultimate analysis yield goes to denote the same thing as an income accruing from a land in a natural course. After consideration we find that the arguments of the Advocate General are not applicable at all. The relevant portion in clause 2 (a) of the Second Schedule reads as below : - "2" Gross Income - (a) x x x x x (Which accrued to him or in relation to Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him but for resumption thereof.) We find that this part of the sentence was inserted by Sec, 4 of Rajasthan Act No. 43 of 1958, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-A Extraordinary dated 5-12-1958. There is nothing to indicate that this provision was intended to be retrospective in effect. There is neither necessary implication nor any other usual phrase indicating retrospective application such as "shall be deemed always to have been substituted or inserted", and so on. It is admitted on all sides that the jagir was resumed on 1-7-1954; hence the amendments introduced on 5-12-1958 could not have any effect on the present case. Thus in our eyes the arguments about accrual so laboriously built up by the Advocate General have no relevance at all and do not need to be reckoned by us. That being so, we have before us the previous rulings of the Board of Revenue 1959 R. R. D. page 163 and 1966 R. R. D. page 245; the latter ruling is not necessarily sounder by being later because the previous ruling was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench pronounced in the case of Ranjeet Singh. In the 1959 ruling it was stated that - "the learned Government Advocate urged that in view of the provisions of sec. 3 read with sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, the Government was fully competent to modify the rent rates and even if the same were announced after the resumption of the Thikana, the Jagirdar could not claim anything over and above the revised and modified assessed rent. Our attention was also drawn to the provisions of sec. 8 wherein it has been laid down that "and on such sanction the rent rates previously sanctioned, shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the new rates so sanctioned shall take effect from such date as the State Government may specify, not preceding the date on which the rates previously sanctioned came into force, and the modification made by such sanction in other matters shall also take effect from such date as aforesaid," Viewed in this perspective, the argument is that even if the assessed rent, fixed earlier which was higher than the modified assessed rent, the latter shall be deemed to be the amount realisable by the Jagirdar for purposes of basing his claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, drew our attention to sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (9th Amendment) Act, 1958, wherein in clause (2) of sec. 6 of the Act of 1952 after the words "from occupied lands" the words "which accrued to him, or in relation to Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him, but for the resumption thereof" shall be inserted. It was urged that in the light of this amendment the income accrued to the Jagirdar was in fact the sum of Rs. 2905/12/6 which had been declared as the assessed rent of the jagir village. This contention is clearly untenable as the amended section relates only to the Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958. The present Jagir was admittedly resumed on 20-10-54 and it is also not disputed that the revised rent rates were made applicable from Smt. 2020 which is the basic year for working out the claim of the Jagirdar. " N. B. We do not find any such matter in Clause 2 of sec. 6. It is evident that the learned Members had made a slip of pen and they meant clause 2 of the Second Schedule of the Resumption of Jagirs Act.
It is necessary to quote in extenso from the second ruling also : R. R. D. 1966 page 245 (Ranjest Singh vs. State) - "4. I now take up the first contention of the counsel for the appellant. The counsel in support of his argument cited the following rulings : (1) Nanak Chand vs. Board of Revenue U. P. reported in R. D. 1955 page 165. (2) Gokaransingh vs. Ranjeet Singh reported in R. D. 1955 page 314. (3) Amba Prasad vs. Mahboobali Shah reported in A. I. R. 1965 Supreme Court page 54. To support his contention that the Court could give statutory effect to the entry in the record of rights on the relevant date and subsequent changes will have no effect. The reply given by the Government Advocate was that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955 came into force on 9-4-1955. It was revived by the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival) Act 1956 which came into force from 20th May, 1956 and by virtue of clause 9 of the aforesaid Acts the Government was authorised to validate modified rent rates previously sanctioned and other connected matters and further directed that the legality of these matters shall not be questioned. He further stated that the rules cited by the counsel for the appellant do not apply to the present case. Besides this jagir was settled and according to the definition of "settled" as provided in the Jagir Act, the rent rates could be made applicable whether prospectively or retrospectively. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced on the first contention by the counsel and examined the relevant law. It is an admitted fact that this jagir was resumed in 1954 and was a settled jagir within the meaning of the Jagir Act i. e. cash rent rates were made applicable to this jagir in Smt. 2008. It is these very rent rates that was sought to be modified by the Government vide their order dated 27-7-56 contained in Notification of F. 12 (19)/52056. There is no doubt that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 authorises the Govt. to review rent-rates in certain circumstances i. e. if the Government is satisfied that before the closing of the settlement operation the rent rates sanctioned by the State Government required modification on account of error in judgment with regard to formation of assessment circle classification of soil or rent rates. It provides that procedure for framing of proposals, for appointment of a Reviewing Officer, for reframing of assessment circle, a classification of soil and modification of rent. It also provides what matters be considered by the Reviewing Officer and then after the recommendation is received, the State Government under sec. 8 can section modification of the previous rent-rates and sec. 9 validates those rent rates. 6. Thus as far as law laid down in the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act is concerned it is perfectly legal and valid. The counsel for the appellant does not challenge the validity of these Acts. His only contention was that as far as the payment of compensation to the appellant for resumption of his jagir was concerned only those rent rates are to be taken into consideration which were actually recorded in the record of rights at the time of resumption and not those subsequently entitled. In support he has cited the two rulings contained in the R. D. 1955. In the case of Nanak Chand vs. the Board of Revenue, sec. 20 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reformation Act came up for consideration and it was held that the entry of the name as occupant in Khasra or khatauni of Fasli 1356 could only be taken into consideration as recorded in that Khatauni on the relevant date conferring the right of a Adhivasi on these persons who were so recorded. In the case of Gokaransingh vs. Ranjeetsingh again clause (2) states that the income from land revenue and rents from occupied land comes within the definition of the gross income of the jagirdar. Glause (3) lays down that the income from rent shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of secs. 6 and 7. Sec. 6 lays down that the rental income from a jagir land is determined where the land is settled, as the total rent assessed on the jagir lands both Khudkasht and khatedari as entered in the revenue records of the village. Sec. 6 of the Jagir Act runs as follows : - "6. Determination of rental income from jagirdar - (1) For the purpose of assessing the land revenue payable in respect of the jagir lands of jagirdar the Collector shall first determine the rental income from such lands in the manner hereinafter provided - (a) where the village is settled village, the total or - (1) the rents assessed on the Jagir lands (other than Khudkasht, lands which have not been so assessed) as is entered in the revenue records of the village. " The whole scheme under the Jagir Act for determination of gross income is clear enough. It has to be determined in accordance with the principle laid down in Schedule II Clause (2) and clause (3) read with sec. 6 of the aforesaid Act. It means the assessed rent of the Jagir village which is recorded in the Revenue Record of the village for the basic year only has to be taken into consideration i. e. the agricultural year 1-7-1953 to 30-6-1954. There is no doubt that by a separate statute that is the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, these very rent rates prevailing in this jagir village were modified retrospectively. The question therefore for determination before us is whether we should allow the modified rents to be utilised for the purpose of calculating gross income or those rents which were recorded in the revenue record in the basic year. It may also be noted that the jagir was resumed before the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 came into force and therefore the appellant as a jagirdar on the resumption of his jagir by virtue of the Jagir Act, 1952 acquired a vested right to be paid compensation in accordance with the principle laid down in the Act. Those rates cannot be snatched away by a subsequent legislation unless a payment or compensation was provided or by necessary intendment of the legislation that these modified rent-rates would also be applicable for payment of jagir compensation. The plain reading of the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 does not lead to an inference that these rent rates should be made applicable in such a way that they would effect the provisions of the Jagir Act and thus also modified the rent-rates on the basis of which the gross income of the jagirdar in the basic year would have to be determined. Thus the Act i. e. the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 are two independent statutes and in the absence of a clear provision in the latter as well as in the former, an inference cannot be drawn that the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act also modified the provision contained in the resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The rulings cited by the counsel for the appellant referred to above apply fully to this case i. e. when a statute mentioned that a right of a particular person in that case whether the Adiyasi rights were acquired by the person or not it has to depend by the actual entry made in the record of rights on the relevant date. Similarly applying the analogy of the above rule of law it can be said with justification that the jagirdar is entitled to the payment of the compensation of his resumed jagir on the basis of the assessed rents as recorded in the revenue records in the basic year although these rent retes may have been changed for other purposes by the Government under a different enactment. "
It appears to us that though they did not consider the ruling reported in 1959 R. R. D. , nevertheless the learned Members composing the Division Bench took a right view. The Division Bench, which considered the 1959 case, simply went by the Validation Act. They neither considered how far it would apply to compensation under Jagir Resumption Act nor what would be the effect of the language used in Sec. 6 of it nor does it appear that it was brought to their notice that the portion about accrual had been enforced from 5-12-1958 and was not relevant to the case at all. Though the point about accrual was not considered by the Division Bench, which decided the case of Rajasthan, this was not material at all as we have been told that this portion was not applicable. Further the Resumption of Jagirs Act was framed for one specific purpose, though there is practically no preamble to it, cleary it was framed to resume and acquire jagirdaris and arrange for compensation, the Validation of Rent Rates Act on the other hand (it also was without a preamble) had for it purpose the modification of settlement rates, when there was an error of judgment in the formation of assessment circle or soil classification or fixing of rent rates.
Hence, the purposes of the two Acts are quite separate and cannot be interlinked. By the resumption of Jagirs Act, a class of persons had been deprived of their property and so the assent of the President was regarded as necessary to the promulgation of it. The same was the case with all its amendments. The Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 and the Revival and the Repeal Acts on the other hand were concerned solely with the changes in settlement rates. They had no reference to acquisition of 'any body's property and had been promulgated after the sanction of the Governor. Accordingly, it would be stretching legal connotations to hold that the acquisition and resumption of the jagirdars property could be affected by Acts which had simply received the sanctions of the Governor only and which do not refer to jagir resumption at all.
(3.)THE resumption of jagirs having been done, the State Government was legally committed to compensate the loss incurred by the jagirdars and it stands to reason that the compensation must relate to the value of the jagir at the time it was resumed. THEre is no indication in the Jagir Resumption Act that the legislature ever intended otherwise. In Sec. 6 (a) (1) the language is "the rents assessed on the jagir lands as entered in the revenue records of the village". THE language of other sections makes it clear that this related to the basic year. If the legislature had meant that the Validation of Rent Rates Act was to over-ride this clear provision in the Resumption of Jagirs Act, (appart from the fact whether it had the competence to do so without obtaining the President's assent), which had received the assent of the President, there should have been some indication of it. THEre is none such. A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court page 936 holds that statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking them away are ordinarily prospective, they are retrospective only if by clear words or necessary implication, the legislature has made them retrospective and the retrospective operation will be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made by express words or necessary implication. In 1964 R. R. D, page 324 the High Court of Rajasthan held that once proprietory right in a property is vested, the proprietor could not be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. A clear retrospective operation was struck down as violative of the Constitution. A. I. R. 1959 Patna page 488 holds that a law of the description contemplated in Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution must receive the assent of the President otherwise it is illegal. We have already seen that the Validation Act had been authorised by the Governor only, while the Jagir Resumption Act which contemplated deprivation of property had received the assent of the President. Accordingly, any change in the dispositions made by the Jagir Resumption Act necessarily attracted the assent of the President, A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court page 1080 holds that a person cannot be deprived of his property save by a valid law. A. I. R. 1965 Supreme Court page 190 holds that fixing of compensation for compulsory acquisition of lands notified many years after the date of the market value prevailing on the date on which lignite was discovered is arbitrary. "if the owner is by a Constitutional guarantee protected against expropriation of his property otherwise than a just monetary equivalent it would be impossible to hold that a law which authorises acquisition of land not for its true value but for value frozen on some date anterior to the acquisition, on the assumption that all appreciation in its value since that date is attributable to purposes for which the State may use the land of the same future date, must be regarded as infringing the fundamental right. " "to deny to owner of the land, compensation at rates which justly indemnify him for his loss by awarding him compensation at rates prevailing 10 years before the date on which the Notification under sec. 4 (1) was issued, amounts in the circumstances to a flagrant infringement of the fundamental right of the owner of the land under Art. 31 (2) as it stood, when the Act was enacted. "
The amendment in Art. 31 of the Constitution made on 27-4-55 or the fact that in the present case, the date on which the modification was later and not anterior does not affect the force of the observations of their Lordships. We therefore disagree with the earlier ruling of the Board of Revenue and agree with the later one. Our reply to the reference is as below: - "in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation should be paid to Thikanedars legal representatives on the basis of income from rents assessed on the jagir lands as entered in the revenue records pertaining to Smt. 2010. "
Per Shri R. K. Chaturvedy - Without recapitulating the history of the whole case which has been given in the preceding pages by my learned colleagues the fundamental question to be determined in the present case is as to whether compensation to the ex-jagirdar or his legal representatives should be paid on the basis of the previous rent rates or on the basis of the recorded rent rates which were made applicable with retrospective effect. It is only with reference to this basic question that a D. B. of this Board consisting of Shri B. G. Mukerji and myself made a reference to a Larger Bench. The terms of reference may be reproduced as below : - "whether in the facts and circumstances narrated above compensation would be paid to ex-jagirdars legal representatives on the basis of income from rents actually received for Smt. 2010 or according to the rates revised subsequently and applied retrospectively. "
For payment of compensation sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 requires a specific consideration. Sec. 6 of the said Act provides as below : - (6) Determination of rental income from jagir lands (1) For the purpose of assessing the land revenue payable in respect of the Jagir lands of a jagirdar the Collector shall first determine the rental income from such lands in the manner hereinafter provided, 2. Where the Jagir lands are situated in more than one village, the rental income from such lands in each village shall be separately determined. 3. The rental income from the jagir lands in a village shall - (a) Where the village is a settled village, be the total of (i) the rents assessed on the jagir lands (other than khudkasht lands which have not been so assessed as entered) in the revenue records of the village and (ii) the rents which would have been payable in respect of Khudkasht lands (which have not been so assessed if they had been let out to tenants on the prevailing rent rates in the locality ). (b) where the jagir lands are under the direct management of the Govt. or under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and clause (a) does not apply, be the of (i) the rents payable by the tenants thereof, as entered in the Govt. records relating to the jagir lands and (ii) the rents which would have been payable in respect of Khudkasht lands if they had been let out to tenants on the prevailing rent rates in the locality and (c) where the village is not a settled village and clause (b) does not apply be the amount determined in the manner specified in Sec. 7. According to Sec. 6 sub-clause 3 the rental income from the jagir lands in a village shall be where the village is a settled village, the total of rents assessed on the jagir lands other than the khudkasht lands which have not been so assessed as entered in the revenue records of the village. Now it is clear from this provision of law that the rents will be only those rents which have been entered in the revenue records. This provision read with item 2 of the second schedule which lays down the principles governing determination of compnesation payable to Jagirdar provides that at item 2 (a) income from land revenue and rents will be the income from occupied lands as inserted and shall be deemed to have always been inserted by Sec. 16 of Rajasthan Act 17 of 1955 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV Extraordinary dated 5-11-55. In view of this provision it is clear that rental income for purposes of determination of compensation will be the income as entered in the revenue records. This jagir was resumed on 1-7-54. On that date what was the income of this jagir is the crucial point. The Jagir's income in the basic year i. e. , 1953 was Rs. 39,842-1-9 from land revenue and rents and that also from the occupied lands. Although the revision settlement of the jagir lands was done in the year 1951 (St. 2001) the Government under the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955 subsequently reduced the settlement rates with retrospective effect. This retrospective effect to the revised rent rates was given with effect from Smt. year 2008 or the year 1951 A. D. In view of this the income in the basic year of the jagir has to be calculated only in accordance with the rates which were made applicable retrospectively due to revision settlement read with the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. There is no bar for the Govt. to revise the rent rates with retrospective effect and if the Government has given retrospective effect to the revision settlement it has acted well within its rights. In view of the above proposition of law the words "which accrued to him or in relation to Jagir lands resumed on or after the 20th day of August, 1958 would have accrued to him but for resumption thereof" as inserted by Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act, 43 of 1958, published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-A Extraordinary dated 5-12-68 are of no consequence or applicability in the present case. This amendment in the original Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. IV of 1952) was brought about on 5-12-58 and that too without any retrospective effect. This amendment, therefore, will have effect on and after the date of its promulgation or on the jagirs resumed after this date i. e. 5-12-58. Before this provision was brought into force the position of law as it stood then was that the gross income of a Jagirdar for the basic year shall be the total income from his jagir lands under the following head, namely (1 ). Income from land revenue and rents (from occupied lands ).
The rental income of the Jagirdar, therefore was the income derived by him according to the settlement rates which were made applicable with retrospective effect in accordance with the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. This very view was taken by the D. B. of this Board previously vide R. R. D. 1959 page 163. In this D. B. the learned Members held:- "the learned Government Advocate urged that in view of the provisions of Sec. 3 read with Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, the Govt. , was fully competent to modify the rent rates and even if the same were announced after the resumption of the Thikana, the Jagirdar could not claim any thing over and above the revised and modified assessed rent. Our attention was also drawn to the provisions of Sec. 8 wherein it has been laid down that "and on such sanction the rent rates previously sanctioned, shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the new rates so sanctioned shall take effect from such date as the State Govt. may specify, not preceding the date on which the rates, previously sanctioned came into force, and the modification made by such sanction in other matters shall also take effect from such date as aforesaid".
Viewed in this perspective, the argument is that even if the assessed rent fixed earlier which was higher than the modified assessed rent, the latter shall be deemed to be amount realisable by the Jagirdar for purposes of basing his claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, drew our attention to Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (IXth Amendment) Act, 1958 wherein clause (2) of Sec. 6 of the Act of 1952 after the words "from occupied lands" the words "which accrued to him" or in relation to jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him, but for the resumption thereof" shall be inserted. It was urged that in the light of this amendment the income accrued to the Jagirdar was in fact the sum of Rs. 2905/12/6 which had been declared as the assessed rent of the jagir village. This contention is clearly untenable as the amended section relates only to the Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958. The present Jagir was admittedly resumed on 20-1-54 and it is also not disputed that the revised rent rates were made applicable from St. 2009 which is the basic year for working out the claim of the Jagirdar. " In a subsequent judgment by a D. B. of this Board reported in R. R. D. 1966 page 245 (Ranjeet Singh vs. State) relevant portion of which had already been re-produced by my colleagues on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment a different view had been taken. With due deference to the view taken by this D. B. in their judgment mentioned above it has to be seen that the Land Reforms and Resumption at Jagirs Act is an independent Act so far as as the question of determination of compensation to be paid to the Jagirdars for the Jagirs resumed under this Act is concerned. Under the scheme of this Act the cardinal principle which has been laid down is that no Jagir can be resumed unless compensation is paid. How compensation is to be paid ? The principles on the basis of which compensation is to be paid have been laid down in the second Schedule of this Act. Provisions of the second schedule are of vital importance for determination of gross income of a Jagir for purposes of compensation. Even under item second of the II Schedule in the present case the most important point is the income from land revenue and rents as laid down under item (2) (a) of this Schedule. The learned Members while discussing this item have mixed the provisions of Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act and those of Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. The Jagir Resumption Act lays down that no jagir can be resumed without making payment of compensation. It further lays down as to how gross income has to be determined. It also provides that the gross income of a Jagirdar for the basic year shall be the total income from his jagir lands under the following heads : (a) income from land revenue and rents. It has nowhere been provided as to how the land revenue and rents of a particular jagir will be assessed for determination of compensation. The determination of rent and its revision is an independent action by the Government through its agency i. e. , Settlement Department. How the rent rates are to be determined, revised and reviewed is contained in the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or Acts which preceded the promulgation of this Act. But it is beyond the scheme or competence of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act in as to how land revenue or rent rates are worked out, assessed or made applicable.
;
(2.)THIKANA Achrol of Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh was resumed on 1-7-1954 namely Smt. 2011. Settlement in this THIKANA had been introduced with effect from Smt. 2008. As the year of resumption was 1954, the basic year was 1953 namely Smt. 2010. After the settlement of the THIKANA had been done in Smt. 2008 (equivalent to 1951) the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955 subsequently reduced the settlements rates. The revised rates were made applicable with retrospective effect from Smt. 2008 (1951), the year of previous enforcement. For purposes of calculation of compensation, the Jagir Commissioner took the revised rates as his basis and made an award on November 13, 1962.
Thikana Achrol presented an appeal before the Board of Revenue and contended among other things that the compensation should have been calculated according to original rent rates enforced from Smt, 2008. The Division Bench, which heard the appeal of the Thikana considered the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner on many grounds; but for the time being confined its observations to only one point of the memo of appeal and framed the following reference which is to be considered by us: - "whether in the facts and circumstances narrated above, compensation would be paid to ex-jagirdars' legal representatives on the basis for income from rents actually received for Smt. 2010 or according to rates revised subsequently and applied retrospectively ?"
The Advocate for the appellant Thikana stated that his client had actually realised Lagan on the basis of rent rates introduced from Smt. 2008. These had been finalised and enforced from that year in the whole of Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh including Thikana Achrol. U/s 6 of the Jagir Resumption Act read with Secs, 26, 31 and the Second Schedule of the same, the income of his client in the basic year Smt. 2010 should be the yardstick for compensation. The deductions under the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 would not affect the basis of the compensation he was entitled to. The Government might reduce the rates in favour of the cultivators as much as they liked, but the jagirdar's compensation must be calculated on the rents of the basic year. 1966 R. R. D. page 245 (Ranjeet Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan) was relied upon.
It was also contended that the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act had ceased to have effect from 1-1-1956 and as the review of rent rates in regard to Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh had been sanctioned on 27-5-56, the change in the rent rates was illegal, as having been done under no law. A. I. R. 1954 Saurashtra page 77 (Raghavji vs. Modi) was cited as holding that when an Act is repealed, it must be considered except as to transactions past and closed as if it had never existed. A. I. R. 1951 Allahabad page 203 ruled that after the repeal of the Govt. of India Act, no provision of it could be enforced. A. I. R. 1957 Rajasthan page 220, is concerned with a different matter, but the trend is the same. Copy of Government order No. F. 12 (90)86/56 dated 27-6-56 from the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to the Registrar, Board of Revenue, was produced. The Advocate General stated that though the reference spoke of income from rents actually received, in fact, the rents actually received were not criterion, but according to clause 2 (a) of the Second Schedule of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, the income from land revenue under rents should accrue to the Jagirdar in the basic year should have been the desideratum. The Advocate General contended that the legislature have not contemplated compensation on the basis of rents actually received.
The Advocate for appellant Thikanedar stated that the underlying intention of the reference was decision of the question whether compensation was to be paid on the basis of rent rates sanctioned in 1951 or those revised in 1956. Both the parties argued on the question of compensation on the line described above.
We take the point of the expiry of the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act first. The Advocate General produced Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival) Act of 1956 (Act No. XVI of 1965) and stated that this revival) which repeated most of the language of the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, filled the gap created by the ceasing of effect of the Validation Act of 1955. It was further pointed out that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival) Repeal Act of 1957 (Act No. 37 of 1957) repealed the Revival Act and so there was no question of lack of jurisdiction in the Government when it passed the order of 27. 6. 56.
The Advocate for the appellant Thikana thereupon further argued on this point and contended that the Revival Act only regularised action taken by the State Government from 1-1-1956; neither the Board of Revenue nor the Settlement Commissioner or any Settlement Officer, had any jurisdiction under the law to make proposals The proposal of the Board regarding Jamua Ramgarh had been forwarded on 28-1-56 and this action was without jurisdiction. It was also argued that the change introduced in the definition of the word "settled" by Act No. 36 of 1957 could not apply to his client as it had been introduced in the definition of the word "settled" by Act, No. 36 of 1957 could not apply to his client as it had been introduced with effect from 29-11-1957, while the jagir of his client was resumed on 1-7-1954. The definition had not been made retrospectively applicable.
The Advocate General replied that only the action of the Government required to be regularised. It was not necessary that actions done under the orders of the Government should be validated separately. It was also contended that there was no need of retrospective application to a change of definition.
So far as this particular point is concerned, the pleas of the Advocate General are definitely tenable. The Rent Rates (Revival) Act of 1956, and the Rent Rates (Revival repealed Act of 1957 fully covered the administrative acts previous to 27-6-56 and the Government order issued on that date. That the definition of the term "settled" was not made retrospectively applicable is of no significance. We now come to the central issue. On this the Advocate General pointed out that clause 2 (a) of the Second Schedule of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 reads as below : - "2 Gross income - The gross income of a Jagirdar for the basic year shall be the total income from his jagir lands under the following heads: (a) Income from land revenue and rents (from occupied lands) (which accrued to him, or in relation to jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him but for resumption, thereof' He stated that accrual was a very different thing from the actual receipt or an income, an amount might accrue to a person in one year, but actually it might be paid in the next year or even years after that. Hence, stated the Advocate General, even if the jagirdar had realised rents according to the sanction of 1951, these had not accrued to him, because according to Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. , Sec. 8, whenever revised proposals were sanctioned by the State Government, the rent rates previously sanctioned should be deemed to have been cancelled and the new rates were to take effect from such date as the State Government, might specify. In asmuch as the directions of the Government with regard to the rent rates governed by the order of 7-6-56 were that the new rent rates should take effect from 1-7-51, the Advocate General contended that the rates sanctioned by the 1951 order had not accrued to the jagirdar at all, but the rent rates of 1956 were the basis of the accrued; hence in spite of the fact that the record of rights etc, were prepared from 1951 onwards according to sanction of 1951, the retrospective effector order of 1956 made the subsequent rates, the proper basis for compen-sation to be paid to the jagirdar. 1961 R. R. D. page 30 was cited as holding that the expressions 'accrue' and 'yield' both go to denote in the ultimate sense one and the same thing, some thing going or arising out of a certain thing. In the ultimate analysis yield goes to denote the same thing as an income accruing from a land in a natural course. After consideration we find that the arguments of the Advocate General are not applicable at all. The relevant portion in clause 2 (a) of the Second Schedule reads as below : - "2" Gross Income - (a) x x x x x (Which accrued to him or in relation to Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him but for resumption thereof.) We find that this part of the sentence was inserted by Sec, 4 of Rajasthan Act No. 43 of 1958, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-A Extraordinary dated 5-12-1958. There is nothing to indicate that this provision was intended to be retrospective in effect. There is neither necessary implication nor any other usual phrase indicating retrospective application such as "shall be deemed always to have been substituted or inserted", and so on. It is admitted on all sides that the jagir was resumed on 1-7-1954; hence the amendments introduced on 5-12-1958 could not have any effect on the present case. Thus in our eyes the arguments about accrual so laboriously built up by the Advocate General have no relevance at all and do not need to be reckoned by us. That being so, we have before us the previous rulings of the Board of Revenue 1959 R. R. D. page 163 and 1966 R. R. D. page 245; the latter ruling is not necessarily sounder by being later because the previous ruling was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench pronounced in the case of Ranjeet Singh. In the 1959 ruling it was stated that - "the learned Government Advocate urged that in view of the provisions of sec. 3 read with sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, the Government was fully competent to modify the rent rates and even if the same were announced after the resumption of the Thikana, the Jagirdar could not claim anything over and above the revised and modified assessed rent. Our attention was also drawn to the provisions of sec. 8 wherein it has been laid down that "and on such sanction the rent rates previously sanctioned, shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the new rates so sanctioned shall take effect from such date as the State Government may specify, not preceding the date on which the rates previously sanctioned came into force, and the modification made by such sanction in other matters shall also take effect from such date as aforesaid," Viewed in this perspective, the argument is that even if the assessed rent, fixed earlier which was higher than the modified assessed rent, the latter shall be deemed to be the amount realisable by the Jagirdar for purposes of basing his claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, drew our attention to sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (9th Amendment) Act, 1958, wherein in clause (2) of sec. 6 of the Act of 1952 after the words "from occupied lands" the words "which accrued to him, or in relation to Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him, but for the resumption thereof" shall be inserted. It was urged that in the light of this amendment the income accrued to the Jagirdar was in fact the sum of Rs. 2905/12/6 which had been declared as the assessed rent of the jagir village. This contention is clearly untenable as the amended section relates only to the Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958. The present Jagir was admittedly resumed on 20-10-54 and it is also not disputed that the revised rent rates were made applicable from Smt. 2020 which is the basic year for working out the claim of the Jagirdar. " N. B. We do not find any such matter in Clause 2 of sec. 6. It is evident that the learned Members had made a slip of pen and they meant clause 2 of the Second Schedule of the Resumption of Jagirs Act.
It is necessary to quote in extenso from the second ruling also : R. R. D. 1966 page 245 (Ranjest Singh vs. State) - "4. I now take up the first contention of the counsel for the appellant. The counsel in support of his argument cited the following rulings : (1) Nanak Chand vs. Board of Revenue U. P. reported in R. D. 1955 page 165. (2) Gokaransingh vs. Ranjeet Singh reported in R. D. 1955 page 314. (3) Amba Prasad vs. Mahboobali Shah reported in A. I. R. 1965 Supreme Court page 54. To support his contention that the Court could give statutory effect to the entry in the record of rights on the relevant date and subsequent changes will have no effect. The reply given by the Government Advocate was that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955 came into force on 9-4-1955. It was revived by the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival) Act 1956 which came into force from 20th May, 1956 and by virtue of clause 9 of the aforesaid Acts the Government was authorised to validate modified rent rates previously sanctioned and other connected matters and further directed that the legality of these matters shall not be questioned. He further stated that the rules cited by the counsel for the appellant do not apply to the present case. Besides this jagir was settled and according to the definition of "settled" as provided in the Jagir Act, the rent rates could be made applicable whether prospectively or retrospectively. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced on the first contention by the counsel and examined the relevant law. It is an admitted fact that this jagir was resumed in 1954 and was a settled jagir within the meaning of the Jagir Act i. e. cash rent rates were made applicable to this jagir in Smt. 2008. It is these very rent rates that was sought to be modified by the Government vide their order dated 27-7-56 contained in Notification of F. 12 (19)/52056. There is no doubt that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 authorises the Govt. to review rent-rates in certain circumstances i. e. if the Government is satisfied that before the closing of the settlement operation the rent rates sanctioned by the State Government required modification on account of error in judgment with regard to formation of assessment circle classification of soil or rent rates. It provides that procedure for framing of proposals, for appointment of a Reviewing Officer, for reframing of assessment circle, a classification of soil and modification of rent. It also provides what matters be considered by the Reviewing Officer and then after the recommendation is received, the State Government under sec. 8 can section modification of the previous rent-rates and sec. 9 validates those rent rates. 6. Thus as far as law laid down in the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act is concerned it is perfectly legal and valid. The counsel for the appellant does not challenge the validity of these Acts. His only contention was that as far as the payment of compensation to the appellant for resumption of his jagir was concerned only those rent rates are to be taken into consideration which were actually recorded in the record of rights at the time of resumption and not those subsequently entitled. In support he has cited the two rulings contained in the R. D. 1955. In the case of Nanak Chand vs. the Board of Revenue, sec. 20 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reformation Act came up for consideration and it was held that the entry of the name as occupant in Khasra or khatauni of Fasli 1356 could only be taken into consideration as recorded in that Khatauni on the relevant date conferring the right of a Adhivasi on these persons who were so recorded. In the case of Gokaransingh vs. Ranjeetsingh again clause (2) states that the income from land revenue and rents from occupied land comes within the definition of the gross income of the jagirdar. Glause (3) lays down that the income from rent shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of secs. 6 and 7. Sec. 6 lays down that the rental income from a jagir land is determined where the land is settled, as the total rent assessed on the jagir lands both Khudkasht and khatedari as entered in the revenue records of the village. Sec. 6 of the Jagir Act runs as follows : - "6. Determination of rental income from jagirdar - (1) For the purpose of assessing the land revenue payable in respect of the jagir lands of jagirdar the Collector shall first determine the rental income from such lands in the manner hereinafter provided - (a) where the village is settled village, the total or - (1) the rents assessed on the Jagir lands (other than Khudkasht, lands which have not been so assessed) as is entered in the revenue records of the village. " The whole scheme under the Jagir Act for determination of gross income is clear enough. It has to be determined in accordance with the principle laid down in Schedule II Clause (2) and clause (3) read with sec. 6 of the aforesaid Act. It means the assessed rent of the Jagir village which is recorded in the Revenue Record of the village for the basic year only has to be taken into consideration i. e. the agricultural year 1-7-1953 to 30-6-1954. There is no doubt that by a separate statute that is the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, these very rent rates prevailing in this jagir village were modified retrospectively. The question therefore for determination before us is whether we should allow the modified rents to be utilised for the purpose of calculating gross income or those rents which were recorded in the revenue record in the basic year. It may also be noted that the jagir was resumed before the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 came into force and therefore the appellant as a jagirdar on the resumption of his jagir by virtue of the Jagir Act, 1952 acquired a vested right to be paid compensation in accordance with the principle laid down in the Act. Those rates cannot be snatched away by a subsequent legislation unless a payment or compensation was provided or by necessary intendment of the legislation that these modified rent-rates would also be applicable for payment of jagir compensation. The plain reading of the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 does not lead to an inference that these rent rates should be made applicable in such a way that they would effect the provisions of the Jagir Act and thus also modified the rent-rates on the basis of which the gross income of the jagirdar in the basic year would have to be determined. Thus the Act i. e. the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 are two independent statutes and in the absence of a clear provision in the latter as well as in the former, an inference cannot be drawn that the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act also modified the provision contained in the resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The rulings cited by the counsel for the appellant referred to above apply fully to this case i. e. when a statute mentioned that a right of a particular person in that case whether the Adiyasi rights were acquired by the person or not it has to depend by the actual entry made in the record of rights on the relevant date. Similarly applying the analogy of the above rule of law it can be said with justification that the jagirdar is entitled to the payment of the compensation of his resumed jagir on the basis of the assessed rents as recorded in the revenue records in the basic year although these rent retes may have been changed for other purposes by the Government under a different enactment. "
It appears to us that though they did not consider the ruling reported in 1959 R. R. D. , nevertheless the learned Members composing the Division Bench took a right view. The Division Bench, which considered the 1959 case, simply went by the Validation Act. They neither considered how far it would apply to compensation under Jagir Resumption Act nor what would be the effect of the language used in Sec. 6 of it nor does it appear that it was brought to their notice that the portion about accrual had been enforced from 5-12-1958 and was not relevant to the case at all. Though the point about accrual was not considered by the Division Bench, which decided the case of Rajasthan, this was not material at all as we have been told that this portion was not applicable. Further the Resumption of Jagirs Act was framed for one specific purpose, though there is practically no preamble to it, cleary it was framed to resume and acquire jagirdaris and arrange for compensation, the Validation of Rent Rates Act on the other hand (it also was without a preamble) had for it purpose the modification of settlement rates, when there was an error of judgment in the formation of assessment circle or soil classification or fixing of rent rates.
Hence, the purposes of the two Acts are quite separate and cannot be interlinked. By the resumption of Jagirs Act, a class of persons had been deprived of their property and so the assent of the President was regarded as necessary to the promulgation of it. The same was the case with all its amendments. The Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 and the Revival and the Repeal Acts on the other hand were concerned solely with the changes in settlement rates. They had no reference to acquisition of 'any body's property and had been promulgated after the sanction of the Governor. Accordingly, it would be stretching legal connotations to hold that the acquisition and resumption of the jagirdars property could be affected by Acts which had simply received the sanctions of the Governor only and which do not refer to jagir resumption at all.
(3.)THE resumption of jagirs having been done, the State Government was legally committed to compensate the loss incurred by the jagirdars and it stands to reason that the compensation must relate to the value of the jagir at the time it was resumed. THEre is no indication in the Jagir Resumption Act that the legislature ever intended otherwise. In Sec. 6 (a) (1) the language is "the rents assessed on the jagir lands as entered in the revenue records of the village". THE language of other sections makes it clear that this related to the basic year. If the legislature had meant that the Validation of Rent Rates Act was to over-ride this clear provision in the Resumption of Jagirs Act, (appart from the fact whether it had the competence to do so without obtaining the President's assent), which had received the assent of the President, there should have been some indication of it. THEre is none such. A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court page 936 holds that statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking them away are ordinarily prospective, they are retrospective only if by clear words or necessary implication, the legislature has made them retrospective and the retrospective operation will be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made by express words or necessary implication. In 1964 R. R. D, page 324 the High Court of Rajasthan held that once proprietory right in a property is vested, the proprietor could not be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. A clear retrospective operation was struck down as violative of the Constitution. A. I. R. 1959 Patna page 488 holds that a law of the description contemplated in Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution must receive the assent of the President otherwise it is illegal. We have already seen that the Validation Act had been authorised by the Governor only, while the Jagir Resumption Act which contemplated deprivation of property had received the assent of the President. Accordingly, any change in the dispositions made by the Jagir Resumption Act necessarily attracted the assent of the President, A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court page 1080 holds that a person cannot be deprived of his property save by a valid law. A. I. R. 1965 Supreme Court page 190 holds that fixing of compensation for compulsory acquisition of lands notified many years after the date of the market value prevailing on the date on which lignite was discovered is arbitrary. "if the owner is by a Constitutional guarantee protected against expropriation of his property otherwise than a just monetary equivalent it would be impossible to hold that a law which authorises acquisition of land not for its true value but for value frozen on some date anterior to the acquisition, on the assumption that all appreciation in its value since that date is attributable to purposes for which the State may use the land of the same future date, must be regarded as infringing the fundamental right. " "to deny to owner of the land, compensation at rates which justly indemnify him for his loss by awarding him compensation at rates prevailing 10 years before the date on which the Notification under sec. 4 (1) was issued, amounts in the circumstances to a flagrant infringement of the fundamental right of the owner of the land under Art. 31 (2) as it stood, when the Act was enacted. "
The amendment in Art. 31 of the Constitution made on 27-4-55 or the fact that in the present case, the date on which the modification was later and not anterior does not affect the force of the observations of their Lordships. We therefore disagree with the earlier ruling of the Board of Revenue and agree with the later one. Our reply to the reference is as below: - "in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation should be paid to Thikanedars legal representatives on the basis of income from rents assessed on the jagir lands as entered in the revenue records pertaining to Smt. 2010. "
Per Shri R. K. Chaturvedy - Without recapitulating the history of the whole case which has been given in the preceding pages by my learned colleagues the fundamental question to be determined in the present case is as to whether compensation to the ex-jagirdar or his legal representatives should be paid on the basis of the previous rent rates or on the basis of the recorded rent rates which were made applicable with retrospective effect. It is only with reference to this basic question that a D. B. of this Board consisting of Shri B. G. Mukerji and myself made a reference to a Larger Bench. The terms of reference may be reproduced as below : - "whether in the facts and circumstances narrated above compensation would be paid to ex-jagirdars legal representatives on the basis of income from rents actually received for Smt. 2010 or according to the rates revised subsequently and applied retrospectively. "
For payment of compensation sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 requires a specific consideration. Sec. 6 of the said Act provides as below : - (6) Determination of rental income from jagir lands (1) For the purpose of assessing the land revenue payable in respect of the Jagir lands of a jagirdar the Collector shall first determine the rental income from such lands in the manner hereinafter provided, 2. Where the Jagir lands are situated in more than one village, the rental income from such lands in each village shall be separately determined. 3. The rental income from the jagir lands in a village shall - (a) Where the village is a settled village, be the total of (i) the rents assessed on the jagir lands (other than khudkasht lands which have not been so assessed as entered) in the revenue records of the village and (ii) the rents which would have been payable in respect of Khudkasht lands (which have not been so assessed if they had been let out to tenants on the prevailing rent rates in the locality ). (b) where the jagir lands are under the direct management of the Govt. or under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and clause (a) does not apply, be the of (i) the rents payable by the tenants thereof, as entered in the Govt. records relating to the jagir lands and (ii) the rents which would have been payable in respect of Khudkasht lands if they had been let out to tenants on the prevailing rent rates in the locality and (c) where the village is not a settled village and clause (b) does not apply be the amount determined in the manner specified in Sec. 7. According to Sec. 6 sub-clause 3 the rental income from the jagir lands in a village shall be where the village is a settled village, the total of rents assessed on the jagir lands other than the khudkasht lands which have not been so assessed as entered in the revenue records of the village. Now it is clear from this provision of law that the rents will be only those rents which have been entered in the revenue records. This provision read with item 2 of the second schedule which lays down the principles governing determination of compnesation payable to Jagirdar provides that at item 2 (a) income from land revenue and rents will be the income from occupied lands as inserted and shall be deemed to have always been inserted by Sec. 16 of Rajasthan Act 17 of 1955 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV Extraordinary dated 5-11-55. In view of this provision it is clear that rental income for purposes of determination of compensation will be the income as entered in the revenue records. This jagir was resumed on 1-7-54. On that date what was the income of this jagir is the crucial point. The Jagir's income in the basic year i. e. , 1953 was Rs. 39,842-1-9 from land revenue and rents and that also from the occupied lands. Although the revision settlement of the jagir lands was done in the year 1951 (St. 2001) the Government under the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955 subsequently reduced the settlement rates with retrospective effect. This retrospective effect to the revised rent rates was given with effect from Smt. year 2008 or the year 1951 A. D. In view of this the income in the basic year of the jagir has to be calculated only in accordance with the rates which were made applicable retrospectively due to revision settlement read with the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. There is no bar for the Govt. to revise the rent rates with retrospective effect and if the Government has given retrospective effect to the revision settlement it has acted well within its rights. In view of the above proposition of law the words "which accrued to him or in relation to Jagir lands resumed on or after the 20th day of August, 1958 would have accrued to him but for resumption thereof" as inserted by Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act, 43 of 1958, published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-A Extraordinary dated 5-12-68 are of no consequence or applicability in the present case. This amendment in the original Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. IV of 1952) was brought about on 5-12-58 and that too without any retrospective effect. This amendment, therefore, will have effect on and after the date of its promulgation or on the jagirs resumed after this date i. e. 5-12-58. Before this provision was brought into force the position of law as it stood then was that the gross income of a Jagirdar for the basic year shall be the total income from his jagir lands under the following head, namely (1 ). Income from land revenue and rents (from occupied lands ).
The rental income of the Jagirdar, therefore was the income derived by him according to the settlement rates which were made applicable with retrospective effect in accordance with the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. This very view was taken by the D. B. of this Board previously vide R. R. D. 1959 page 163. In this D. B. the learned Members held:- "the learned Government Advocate urged that in view of the provisions of Sec. 3 read with Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955, the Govt. , was fully competent to modify the rent rates and even if the same were announced after the resumption of the Thikana, the Jagirdar could not claim any thing over and above the revised and modified assessed rent. Our attention was also drawn to the provisions of Sec. 8 wherein it has been laid down that "and on such sanction the rent rates previously sanctioned, shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the new rates so sanctioned shall take effect from such date as the State Govt. may specify, not preceding the date on which the rates, previously sanctioned came into force, and the modification made by such sanction in other matters shall also take effect from such date as aforesaid".
Viewed in this perspective, the argument is that even if the assessed rent fixed earlier which was higher than the modified assessed rent, the latter shall be deemed to be amount realisable by the Jagirdar for purposes of basing his claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, drew our attention to Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (IXth Amendment) Act, 1958 wherein clause (2) of Sec. 6 of the Act of 1952 after the words "from occupied lands" the words "which accrued to him" or in relation to jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958, would have accrued to him, but for the resumption thereof" shall be inserted. It was urged that in the light of this amendment the income accrued to the Jagirdar was in fact the sum of Rs. 2905/12/6 which had been declared as the assessed rent of the jagir village. This contention is clearly untenable as the amended section relates only to the Jagir lands resumed on or after the twentieth day of August, 1958. The present Jagir was admittedly resumed on 20-1-54 and it is also not disputed that the revised rent rates were made applicable from St. 2009 which is the basic year for working out the claim of the Jagirdar. " In a subsequent judgment by a D. B. of this Board reported in R. R. D. 1966 page 245 (Ranjeet Singh vs. State) relevant portion of which had already been re-produced by my colleagues on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment a different view had been taken. With due deference to the view taken by this D. B. in their judgment mentioned above it has to be seen that the Land Reforms and Resumption at Jagirs Act is an independent Act so far as as the question of determination of compensation to be paid to the Jagirdars for the Jagirs resumed under this Act is concerned. Under the scheme of this Act the cardinal principle which has been laid down is that no Jagir can be resumed unless compensation is paid. How compensation is to be paid ? The principles on the basis of which compensation is to be paid have been laid down in the second Schedule of this Act. Provisions of the second schedule are of vital importance for determination of gross income of a Jagir for purposes of compensation. Even under item second of the II Schedule in the present case the most important point is the income from land revenue and rents as laid down under item (2) (a) of this Schedule. The learned Members while discussing this item have mixed the provisions of Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act and those of Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955. The Jagir Resumption Act lays down that no jagir can be resumed without making payment of compensation. It further lays down as to how gross income has to be determined. It also provides that the gross income of a Jagirdar for the basic year shall be the total income from his jagir lands under the following heads : (a) income from land revenue and rents. It has nowhere been provided as to how the land revenue and rents of a particular jagir will be assessed for determination of compensation. The determination of rent and its revision is an independent action by the Government through its agency i. e. , Settlement Department. How the rent rates are to be determined, revised and reviewed is contained in the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or Acts which preceded the promulgation of this Act. But it is beyond the scheme or competence of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act in as to how land revenue or rent rates are worked out, assessed or made applicable.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.