- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act, 1952, against the order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Sawai Madhopur, dated 4. 11. 60.
(2.) THE order of the learned lower court has been assailed on the following grounds: - THE income from Sawai Chak has been allowed on the assessment fixed by the Settlement Department, when all the land was not occupied during the basic year. This contention is borne out by the very second line of the judgment of the learned Deputy Collector, where he has discussed the income under this head. He has very clearly stated that it was only 16 bighas and 17 biswas of this land that was under cultivatory possession during the basic year. Rental income can be allowed, vide para 2 of the Second Schedule of the Act read with para 3 thereof, on account of rent from "occupied lands" only. THE learned Deputy Collector has acted quite contrary to it and has allowed rental income at the assessed rates on whole of the Sawai-Chak which is nowhere provided under the Act. If there was any income from grazing fees from this area, as the learned Deputy Collector has stated, the income allowed should have been, vide para 2 (c) referred to above, on the basis of the average yield for 3 years preceding the basic year. It could not be allowed on the basis of the income that might be accruing to the State Government after the resumption, this being also one of the factors influencing the judgment of the learned Deputy Collector. Under the circumstances, this objection has to be accepted and the learned Deputy Collector should be directed to re-assess the income under this head in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. The learned Counsel for the respondent has referred us in this connection to the judgment in unreported case No. 18 (Sawai Madhopur, 1960), State Vs. Pratap Singh, decided on 29-12-60, to which one of us was a party, and to case No. 31 (Sawaimadhopur of 1959), State Vs. Bajrang Singh, decided on 4. 3. 60. Both those cases are however distinguishable from the present one. In the present case, Sawai-Chak land assessment of which has been allowed, is admittedly in the occupation of nobody. In case No. 18 referred to, the point whether the land was under the occupation of anybody or not had not at all been raised and it is, therefore, presumed that the land was occupied and it was only on that basis that the income thereon allowed was that represented by the assessed rents thereon. In case No. 31 clearly the land was an occupied one, it having entered as Araji Makbuja Thikana and the parcha chakbandi whereof had been issued to the jagirdar himself. No guidance can, therefore, be taken in this case from these two judgments. The income on account of the sale of wood and Loom Patri has been allowed on the basis of only certain lists which have not been corroborated fully by any independent evidence. This contention is also borne out by the record. The 'pannes' (lists) submitted are in the account books. It is only the 'books of account', entries wherein, if they are found to have been kept regularly in the course of business, that can be regarded as a relevant evidence under sec. 34 of the Evidence Act. Such an entry should be in a "book", the book should be a 'book of account' and the 'book of account' should be regularly kept in the course of business. 'the word "book" signifies the collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. Unbound sheets of paper in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account. To account is to reckon, and it is not possible to conceive an accounting which does not involve either addition or subtraction or both of these operations of arithmetic. A book which contains successive entries of items may be a good memorandum book but until those entries are totalled or balanced or both, as the case may be, there is no reckoning and consequently no account. The Legislature did not intend to include in the category of books of account any record in which there is no process of reckoning. Therefore, a book which merely contains entries of items of which no account is made at any time is not a 'book of account' for the purposes of sec. 34. " (See pages 355-3 56" of the Indian Evidence Act by M. Munir, Third Edition. We have looked into the panries (lists) submitted in this case by the respondent. They are unbound loose papers and cannot be called a bound-book of sheets of paper. Those of them dealing with the sale of wood cannot even be called to contain any "reckoning" in the sense required. Such papers cannot be treated to be 'books of account' under sec. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The entries therein had therefore to be proved in toto by some evidence, not only corroborating but also independent. The learned counsel for the respondent has very vehemently urged that these 'books' should be taken as the "books of account" and has referred us to the unreported decision of the Board in Case No. 31 (Sawaimadhopur of 1959) State Vs. Bajrang Singh already referred to above. In that case, however, it was a "bahi" (which naturally and obviously means a 'book of account consisting of sheets of paper bound together) which had been discussed by the learned D. B. deciding it. It was in that connection that it was observed that some witnesses including the scribe of the 'bahi' had been examined by the jagirdar and that there had been produced nothing on behalf of the State in rebuttal thereof, and that was why the learned Members of the D. B. preferred to confirm the judgment of the learned Deputy Collector. The contention in that case raised on behalf of the State was that the "bahi" was not being corroborated by any other "rokar Bahi"; and it was in that context that it was remarked that "every case had to be judged on its own merits as far as this point is concerned. It is not necessary that the entries in the books should have been made from day to day or from hour to hour as transactions take place. It is not even necessary elaborate account books should be maintained. The status of the person maintaining the account and the volume of the accounts have necessarily to be looked into in the context. " Obviously, these observations cannot relate to and be relevant for considering the value of the list (panries) as have been produced by the respondent in the present case. In brief, books of account are "books of account" and the loose papers howsoever elaborate they might be are only loose papers. Loose papers cannot be given the same status as the books of account under sec. 34 of the Evidence Act, We, however, feel that if the learned Deputy Collector had cared to apply his mind to this side of the case, it is just possible that the respondent might have been able to prove all the entries in the panries or lists produced by him. It would be, therefore, proper, as has been conceded, by the learned Government Advocate also, to let the jagirdar have further opportunity of proving the entries in these panries by independent and corroborating evidence. These observations would apply to income both on account of wood and sale of loom patri. It has been also urged on behalf of the Government, that the learned Deputy Collector has allowed rental income over the Sawai-Chak land and at the same time allowed income from sale of wood and loom patri from the same land. The learned counsel for the respondent has contested this objection. But he has not been able to show us anywhere that it had been found as a fact by the learned Deputy Collector that the lands from which these two incomes had been allowed were really different. He has referred us to the statements of the Patwari Girdhari Lal as well as the note of inspection recorded by the learned Deputy Collector. Both of them however, do not go to establish that the two lands were different. There is, however, record in the note of inspection of the site that the khasra No. 359, 409, 436 and 449 contain a thick growth of Bambuls from which loom patri and wood appeared to have been sold. For this reason it is necessary in the interest of justice that this point also may be got re-examined as to whether the Sawai-Chak from which grazing income had been allowed in accordance with assessed rents was different from the land from which the sale of wood and loom patri had been allowed. To conclude we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned lower court so far as it relates to the income from Sawai-Chak land and incomes from sale of wood and loom patri and remand the case to him with the direction that he would redetermine the above incomes in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above and thereafter re-finalise the award of compensation and rehabilitation payable to the respondent jagirdar. . ;