- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Dy. Collector, Jagirs, Sikar, dated 18. 4. 60 The facts in brief are that the respondents submitted an application to the Dy. Collector Jagir, Sikar, alleging that they were the Jagirdars of village Sujawas, Tehsil Danta-Ramgarh. In this jagir half share is admittedly in the name of Ladusingh and Sawaisingh, With regards to the remaining half the case for the respondents was that they were entitled to three fourth share and the appellants only one fourth share i. e. in whole of the village the respondent's claim 3/8 share and the appellants, according to the respondents, had only 1/8 share. The respondents alleged in the aforesaid application that the appellants collusively got certain fields entered in their name and thus claimed one fourth share in whole of the village instead of one eighth. The dispute was pending in the Settlement Department but after the jagir was resumed, it was ordered that the Settlement Department was not competent to decide the case. It was further alleged in the application that the appellants have dishonestly asked for compensation of these fields though they had no right or title on them. It was prayed that the file should be called for from the Settlement Department or the Dy. Collector, Jagir should decide the dispute himself. The Dy. Collector, Jagir thereupon recorded the evidence and decided that the respondents were entitled to 3/8 share and the appellants to 1/8 share; hence this appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that under the amended sec. 37 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, I952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Dy. Collector, Jagir, has no jurisdiction to make an enquiry and pass the order which he did. Sec. 37 was amended by the Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1959 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra, Extra,-ordinary part IV-A, dated 25th of May, 1959. Under the old sec. 37 the Jagir Commissioner had jurisdiction to make an enquiry and pass such orders as he deemed fit on any question relating to title, right or interest in any jagir land in the course of the proceedings under the Act with the exception of a question referred to in sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions Validation Act, 1955 or a question which had already been decided by the competent authority. According to the amended sec. 37 the jurisdiction of the Jagir Commissioner has been further excluded from deciding any question as to any khudkasht land or correctness or otherwise of any entry relating thereto in any settlement records or as to any boundary, map, field-book, record of rights or annual register or as to any Wazib-ul-arz or Dasturganwai or any other settlement paper lawfully prepared or as to the correctness or otherwise of any entry made therein. Before the amendment of 25. 5. 59 if any question of title right or interest except a question covered under sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir Resumption and Validation Act, arose, the Jagir Commissioner had the authority to make an enquiry and decide the same in such manner as he deemed fit, unless the question had already been decided by a competent court. This meant that even the entries in the settlement papers could be challenged before the Jagir Commissioner where these entries related to a question concerning title, right or interest in the Jagir land. The Jagir Commissioner was competent to hold any such settlement entry as incorrect. The Settlement entries, on the other hand, could be varied or altered only in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and were otherwise binding on all revenue courts. It appears to us that it was with a view to avoiding this conflict of jurisdiction that the new amendment was enacted. If the correctness of a settlement entry is challenged before the Jagir Commissioner even in respect of a jagir land, he now cannot take upon himself the duty of inquiring into it. In accordance with sub-sec. 4 of sec. 37 he shall have to refer it for enquiry and decision of the court competent to do so. The jurisdiction of the Jagir Commissioner, thus to make an enquiry into the merits, and pass such orders as he deemed fit, of any jagir land, is now further restricted inter alia to not challenging the correctness or otherwise of an entry made in any settlement record. The result of this amendment obviously is to exclude from the purview of the Jagir Commissioner decision on such disputes, even though they involve the question of title, right and interest in any jagir land, which have already been decided under Chapter VII of the Land Revenue Act. The amendment is only an extension of the principle already existing in the previous Act, namely, that the Jagir Commissioner would not be competent to decide a question of title, right or interest on a Jagir land if it has been already decided by a competent authority. Under Sec. 141 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, subject to the right of a party to establish his claim to the property in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction, all decisions made under Chapter VII of the above Act in case of dispute were binding on all revenue courts, in respect of the subject matter of the disputes unless such disputes were with regard to the rent or revenue payable by a tenant. Previously the Jagir Comsr could ignore decisions made in Settlement operations under Chapter VII but as a result of this amendment he is barred from adjudicating on the correctness or otherwise of an entry made in any settlement paper prepared under Chapter VII of the Land Revenue Act. With this view of the matter, we think that the Jagir Commissioner can himself decide any question relating to title, right or interest in any jagir land provided that in the process of arriving at that decision, he has not to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of an entry in settlement records. If he cannot decide that question without holding that a particular entry in the settlement records was wrong or that the party contesting the correctness of a settlement entry has not been able to show that it was wrong, he should not proceed with the enquiry but refer the matter to the competent revenue officer or court concerned. Similarly, he has no jurisdiction to decide a question wherein the decision will tantamount to changing an entry already existing in the Settlement record, for in that case, he will be appropriating to himself the jurisdiction to decide disputes which had already been decided under Chapter VII of the land Revenue Act. But he can certainly make an enquiry into any title, right or interest in any Jagir Land without impinging upon the correctness or otherwise of entries in settlement records, or, where reference to such entries is only incidental or ancillary and the dispute is not based on them, or where settlement entries have been set up as a plea, malafide to oust his jurisdiction, provided the enquiry does not relate to a question referred to in Sec. 3 or the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Act and the question has not been already decided by a competent authority. The learned counsel for the respondent cited before us a number of authorities : RLW 1958 page 580, RLW 1953 page 338, RRD 1960 at page 157. But all these rulings are in respect of cases which were decided before the 25th of May, 1959 when sec, 37 was amended. They are, therefore, not applicable. He also referred to us the provisions of sec. 239 of r,he Rajasthan Tenancy Act which are clearly inapplicable to a case under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. Coming to facts of the present case we find that the respondents in their application start with challenging the entries in the Settlement records. The decision of the Deputy Collector Jagir has in essence meant that the entries in the settlement records, wherein share or the parties is entered is 1/4 each, were wrong and the correct entries should have been 3/8th in favour of the respondents and 1/8th in favour of appellants. In view of the interpretation we have put on Sec. 37 of the Act the Jagir Commissioner or the Deputy Collector, Jagir had no jurisdiction to decide these questions. It may however, be noted that the disputes with regard to correctness of these entries was pending before the Settlement Officer, when at the close of these operations he closed the proceedings saying that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. His view as the law stood at the time was correct but the Dy. Collector Jagir passed his order on 18. 4. 1960 when the new amendment under sec. 37 of the Act had come into force, which as discussed by us above, had ousted his jurisdiction. The correct procedure for him was to refer the matter under sec. 37 (4) to the competent court or the officer for decision. As he failed to do so, his order is therefore without jurisdiction, and cannot be allowed to stand, We therefore, accept this appeal set aside the order of the Collector, Jagir, and remand the case with the direction that he should now follow the procedure under sec. 37 of the Act. . ;