- (1.) THIS appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed against an order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated 13. 4. 59 whereby the final award given by him on 17. 10. 58 was reviewed suo moto.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the decision under appeal before us on a number of grounds. We shall deal with each one of them separately. The first contention is that the Additional Jagir Commissioner had not been vested by any statute the power of review and hence the decision under appeal should be deemed to be ultra vires of him. In this connection a reference has been made to Notification No. 5294 F. 25 (56) R & C/jc/56 dated the 17th July, 1958 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated 14th August, 1958, Part IV (G), page 784, wherein the Jagir Commissioner had delegated with the previous sanction of the State Government powers of review to the Divisional Commissioners, Collectors and Deputy Collectors Jagir. It has been! argued that this Notification makes no mention of the Additional Jagir Commissioner and hence it should be held that no powers of review were delegated to the Additional Jagir Commissioner. This contention is untenable. Appointment of Additional Jagir Commissioner is a matter dealt with in Rules 17 to 20 of the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 18 lays down that an Additional Jagir Commissioner appointed under Rule 17 shall for administrative purposes be deemed to be subordinate to the Jagir Commissioner and for all purposes of the Act and the Rules with regard to hearing matters and cases that may be made over to him he shall be deemed to be the Jagir Commissioner in respect of such matters and cases and shall exercise in relation thereto the same powers as are exercisable under the Act by the Jagir Commissioner. Thus there can be no question of any delegation of powers of review by the Jagir Commissioner to the Additional Jagir Commissioner for by virtue of these express provisions of law he is to be deemed to be the Jagir Commissioner while dealing with the matters and cases made over to him. It has also been argued that as the review was entertained beyond three months of the date of the final award it should be deemed to be beyond limitation. This contention is again untenable. Sec. 40-A of the Act clearly lays down that the Jagir. Commissioner may either on an application made, within three months from the 18th of January, 1958 or of the date of order whichever is later, by any interested party or suo moto review an order passed by himself or his predecessor in office and may thereon pass such order as he thinks fit. The three months' limitation referred to in this section is obviously applicable to an application made by any interested party and not to suo moto proceedings by way of review. On merits no serious attempt was made to challenge the propriety of the decision of the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner. It has not been disputed before us that the Jagirdar had drawn by way of interim compensation the amount which has been stated in the order under appeal. The only contention is that the share of the co-sharers should not have been burdened with the excess, if any, paid to the Jagirdar and that the same should be realised from the Jagirdar through separate proceedings, the co-sharers being paid through the bonds. No elaborate reasons are needed to expose the untenable nature of this argument. The Jagirdar Khuman Singh alone is entitled to compensation as the Jagir stands in his name and he alone is eligible to claim compensation. It is only through a private agreement or arrangement that Shri Ram Singh and Shri Lal Singh are to be paid shares out of this compensation and rehabilitation grant. Naturally what has been paid to the Jagirdar shall be deducted from the amount that is to be paid to him and the decision of the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner is, therefore, correct. A reference was also made to the provisions of the Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act, 1956 and it was argued that no amount should have been placed at the disposal of a Civil Court by virtue of the provisions contained in this Act. Suffice it to observe in this connection that it would be open to the appellants to apply to the court concerned for securing the advantages conferred upon him by this legislation. It was not within the competence of the Additional Jagir Commissioner to decide any matter which was not within his jurisdiction. To conclude therefore we hold that there is no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .;