- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, by the State Government against the final award given by the Addl. Jagir Commissioner Jaipur on 10. 1. 61 in Claim No. F (5)JC/jlo.
(2.) ITEM assailed is the income of Rs. 214-10 N. P. from grazing. The contention is that this income could be allowed only on the basis of an average of the three years preceding the basic year; but instead the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner has allowed it on the basis of the average for the yield in the three years succeeding that year. This contention is borne out by the record. The learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner has stated that as compared with the income claimed by the Jagirdar he thought it expedient to award compensation on the average income of the three years immediately succeeding the year of resumption. This he has done with the observation that the entries in the 'rokars' produced by the Jagirdar were not corroborated but it was fully proved that the Jagirdar did have an income from 'grazing'. Obviously, the decision of the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner is contrary to law in this behalf. Vide Para 2 (c) read with (b) of the Second Schedule of the Act, income from grazing fees can be calculated on the basis of average yield for three years preceding the basic year" only. There is no provision for calculating this income of the Jagirdar on the basis of the average yield for three years succeeding the basic year or the year of resumption or for any other period. This cannot be done even if the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner is not able to arrive at any correct figure on the basis of the evidence produced by the Jagirdar but is convinced otherwise that an income must have accrued to him under this head. We have to come to a conclusion about this income on the basis of the yield for the three years preceding the basic year and for this period alone. The appeal of the State is therefore, to be accepted as has been indirectly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent as well. A cross objection has also been filed in the case on behalf of the Jagirdar. He has contested thereby that the income under 'grazing' should not have been reduced from his claim of Rs. 2194-38 N. P. to only Rs. 214-10 N. P. His contention is that he was legally entitled to get Rs. 2194-88 N. P. As this point is involved in the State appeal also which we have decided to accept and remand the case back for re-determining this income, this objection of the Jagirdar can also be locked into by the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner while deciding the same. He should now consider the objections of both the sides about this income and re-determine the amount under this head in accordance with law, in view of the observations made above. Further contention raised by way of cross objection by the Jagirdar is that his claim for a sum of Rs. 4304-48 N. P. under the head 'non-agricultural uses of land' has been wrongly dis-allowed. We find from the judgment that the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner has disallowed the claim under this head on the ground that no corroborating evidence had been produced in support of the 'rokers' produced in this behalf. We find, however, from the perusal of the record of the lower court that there has been some evidence also about the claim of the income which has been recorded by the Deputy Collector Jagir under order of the Addl. Jagir Commissioner. The learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner should have considered that evidence also. ofcourse, vide Rule 80 (2) of the Rules made under the Act, he should have upon receipt of such evidence and report, afforded "all persons, including the Government affected thereby an opportunity to lodge objections against the same", and it should nave been only after hearing them, if they appeard, "with respect thereto and with respect to the objections, if any, lodged by them" that he could pass such orders as he deemed "readable and proper thereon. As the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner has failed to adopt the present procedure in this case, his order cannot be up-held. The third point raised by way of cross objection is that the dues for the year of resumption deducted out of the compensation amount payable to the Jagirdar have been deducted twice, once while giving him interim compensation and then again from the amount finally awarded to him. This is a matter of calculation which can be corrected at any time and the learned Government Advocate too has got no objection to have it verified again and corrected, if necessary, when the case was being remanded on other points. To conclude, we accept this appeal as well as the cross objections, set aside the judg-ment of the Addl. Jagir Commissioner so far as it relates to the incomes from grazing and non-agricultural uses of land as well as the deductions on account of rateable distribution, under sec. 22 (1) (d) of the Act of the income from rents accrued during the year of resumption, and remand the case back to him with directions that all these three items would be redetermined in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above and the compensation re-determined finally thereafter. .;