- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Dewan of Jhalawar State passed on 29.1.35 vide No. .3338 and which remained pending in the Mehkma Khas of the covenanting Jhalawar State till the State merged with the Former Rajasthan and which has now been transferred to this Board.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant was a manotidar of Tour villages in Nizamat Dug. On 12.1.35 Nizamat Dug submitted a report that the manotidar had failed to deposit kists of his villages of manoti as also to distribute money for seeds and manner to his khate-dars therefore his manoti be cancelled. This recommendation, on being received through the Mehkma Mal; was sanctioned by the Dewan of the State on 29.1.35. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred. The appellant in person and the Perokar Sarkar were heard. The Chief arguments of the appellant are that no proper enquiries establishing his default of manoti rules were made by the Nazim Dug, and that this report was based on enquiries held ex parte. The appellant's dues from the tenants amount to Rs. 50,000-. Therefore the order passed regarding cancellation of manotidari be set aside and the tehsildar concerned may be ordered to assist him in recovering the arrears due from the tenants according to sec. 122 Chapter V of the Jhalawar Qanun Mannual. The Perokar Sarkar in reply refuted the allegations of the appellant by referring to the statements of the appellant Sardarmal recorded in St. year 1934 and 1935 in which he had admitted that Sahna and Qanun goes were deputed to assist him in the realization of his arrears and that he had recovered some money and some had given written promises to make payments of his dues. Further when the case, on being remanded by the Mehkma Khas of the covenanting Jhalawar State to enquire into these allegations was resubmitted by Mal Sadar vide their report dated 26.2.40 it was made clear that for St. year 1990-91 the appellant did not deposit kist of his tenants of manoti but on the other hand he made a* request that the State should realise dues from the tenant and the excess which may be collected from them, may be paid to him towards his arrears. Thus it is established that the appellant violated Manoti Rule No. 121 and his manoti was justly terminated. A careful examination of the arguments of the parties shows that the appellant failed to deposit the kists of the villages of his manoti. But at the same time his arrears of high amounts on tenants remained unrealised. Though an attempt on the part of the Tehsildar has been made to prove that full assistance towards recovery was given, but it has not been established, as these reports state that in some cases agreements with tenants were arranged. This was not sufficient. A manotidar cannot go on indefinitely depositing land rent from his pocket when there are no chances of recovery of bis dues. But the question of restoration of manotidari is out of consideration now, as no manoti system is in existence now. A court cannot pass an order the execution of which is not possible. However the question whether the State should assist him in recovering his dues from his tenants or not, remains to be decided. This was possible for the state under the Manoti Rules, but when the Manoti system itself has been done away with, no action under these rules is justified. Therefore all what the court in this respect can order is that the appellant should make recoveries according to the existing laws. This judgment will not be a bar to the recovery of his dues. The amount of Rs. 150/- deposited by the manotidar in December 1933 and which was not credited to the manoti kist, be refunded to the appellant. The appeal is therefore, rejected.;