Chhangani, J. - (1.) THIS appeal was filed by Umedsingh ex-istimrardar of Baori estate, against the order of the Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer passed in compensation proceedings under the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act (No. 111) of 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). Umed Singh having died during the pendency of the appeal, Mst. Dilawar Kanwar and another have been brought on record as his legal representatives and this appeal is being continued by them.
(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly as follows : - THE Government of the former State of Ajmer vide S. R. O. No. 1648 published in the Gazette of India, Extra-ordinary Part II sec. 3 dated 28th July, 1955 declared that from the 1st day of August, 1955 all istimrari estates situated in the State of Ajmer and held by istimrardars, shall vest in the State Government. Under this notification, the Baori estate of the appellant vested in the State. Under sec. 12 of the Act, the intermediary was required to file a statement of claim within two months from the date of vesting. THE compensation payable to an intermediary is to be calculated in accordance with sec. 12 and 13 of the Act and r. 21 and 22 of the Rules framed under sec. 84 of the Act. It appears that as the intermediary Umedsingh along with other intermediaries had moved writ applications in the Supreme Court of India, there was the initial reluctance on their part to cooperate with the compensation authorities in the matter of determination of compensation. No claim was consequently filed before the Compensation Officer by Umed Singh within the prescribed period. Even when the Compensation Officer purporting to act under r. 21 of the Rules wanted to hear him before determining compensation, he submitted an application dated 12th January, 1956 stating that as he had moved a writ application in the Supreme Court, he would not be bound to accept any compensation that may be determined in his case. THE Compensation Officer, in these circumstances, had no alternative but to submit his report to the Compensation Commissioner for further proceedings under sec. 13 of the Act. After the report was submitted, wiser counsel seemed to have prevailed upon Umed Singh and on 4th of May, 1956, he submitted a statement of claim in the prescribed form with necessary information and some documentary evidence. At that stage, he sought an opportunity to bring on record all necessary materials which may have some bearing in the proper determination of compensation. THE Compensation Commissioner, however, did not think it proper to permit the appellant to introduce any evidence at that stage for the purpose of determining compensation. He, therefore, rejected his application and determined the compensation on the report submitted by the Compensation Officer vide his order under appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Compensation Commissioner, the appellant has filed this appeal. I have heard Mr. Beri on behalf of the appellant and Mr. R. A. Gupta on behalf of the State. It was contended by Mr. Beri that even though his client did not act diligently in the initial stages, still in the interest of justice, he should have been given an opportunity of bringing on record necessary materials for the proper determination of compensation. It was also submitted by him that even though he cannot be granted that opportunity as a matter of right, still in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, even as matter of indulgence, he should be given an opportunity to secure a just and fair compensation after submitting useful and relevant data necessary for the determination of the compensation. The appeal has been strenuously opposed on behalf of the State. It has been urged that on a proper consideration of the relevant provisions both in the Act and the Rules, the Compensation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to permit the appellant to adduce evidence at that stage and as the Compensation Commissioner had no jurisdiction, this Court sitting in appeal also should not permit the appellant to lead additional evidence for securing proper compensation. It will be useful at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions bearing upon the determination of compensation. Sec. 12 of the Act provides for the submission of statements of claims before the Compensation Officer by intermediaries whose estates are directed to vest in the State and prescribes the various particulars which are to be given in the statement of claim. Sec. 13 of the Act prescribes procedure to be adopted by the Compensation Officer and the Compensation Commissioner for the assessment and determination of compensation. R. 21 of the Rules which has also a good deal of relevance in connection with this procedure is very material and reads as follows: - In case no statement has been fifed by the intermediary within the period specified under sec. 12 of the Act, or the statement filed does not contain all the required particulars, the Compensation Officer shall determine the required particulars on the basis of the Record of Rights prepared during the last Record Operations and Annual Registers and other documents after making such necessary enquiry as he may deem fit and after giving an opportunity to the intermediary of being heard. " It contemplates, amongst other things, necessary enquiry by the Compensation Officer, as he may deem fit. It also contemplates an opportunity to the intermediary of being heard. It has to be inferred from sec. 13 of the Act and r. 21 of the Rules that the law contemplates the determination of a fair compensation in spite of a default on the part of an intermediary to submit a statement of claim and for that purpose, a provision has been made for an opportunity to the intermediaries. It was suggested by Mr. Gupta that this opportunity should be limited to the pointing out of errors and omissions in the Record of Rights. I see no good justification for accepting this contention and for limiting the opportunity for the narrow purposes enumerated by Mr. Gupta. I have no doubt that on a reasonable construction, it vests a discretion in the Compensation Officer to permit an intermediary to Bring on record proper and necessary materials for a fair determination of compensation. Further, under sec. 13 of the Act, the Compensation Commissioner on receipt of a report by the Compensation Officer, has in the first instance to determine the total amount of compensation provisionally. This order is required to be served on the intermediary and the Collector under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 13 of the Act. Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 3 of the Act further contemplates the grant of a reasonable opportunity to the intermediary of being heard in the matter. Sub-sec. (3) providing for the affording of reasonable opportunity to an intermediary should not be narrowly interpreted, but must be construed liberally so as to empower the Compensation Commissioner to consider on merits the request on behalf of intermediaries as also the Collector to adduce additional evidence and bring fresh materials and to exercise discretion in an appropriate manner. Mr. Gupta also sought to put a narrow interpretation on sub-sec. (3 ). I am, however, not inclined to interpret sub-sec. (3) in a narrow manner as suggested by Mr. Gupta. I am quite clear that the authorities, at every stage, have discretion vested in them to obtain on record all proper and necessary materials for proper determination of compensation. I may observe that the policy of the land reforms legislation being to secure the twin objects: (a) of eliminating intermediaries, (b) of rehabilitating them in a proper manner and to enable them by providing all reasonable facilities to adapt to the changed conditions, the authorities concerned with the determination of compensation should not emphasise more the enforcement of discipline and the imposition of penalties but should sympathetically conduct these proceedings and as far as" possible determine controversies on merits and should grant all reasonable facilities for this purpose. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that there was certainly a discretion tested in the Compensation Commissioner to permit the intermediary to produce necessary materials at that stage and that in the circumstances of this case, he would have exercised a discretion in favour of the intermediary and should not have shut him from bringing on record necessary materials. This being the case, I have to accept this appeal and to set aside the order of the Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer. The case will go back to him with the direction that he will give all reasonable opportunities to the appellant to bring on record relevant and necessary evidence in support of his claim for compensation. The State will then be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. After both the parties are given reasonable opportunities of adducing evidence, the case will be decided afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. . ;