KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan who was the defendant has brought this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Pali 25-9-67 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit against the State in a sum of Rs. 12,250. 70 paise with costs.
(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 was based on the final determination of his compensation in respect of the resumption of his jagir. THE plaintiff averred that jagir was resumed under the Rajasthan land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952, hereinafter to be referred as the "act" with effect from 1-9-54. THE final award regarding the compensation payable to the ex-Jagirdar was given by the Jagir Commissioner on 10-6 63 vide Ex. 1. THE total amount payable as compensation was fixed at Rs. 201310 50 paise and it was payable with interest at Rs. 2. 50 percent per annum from the date of resumption till it was paid. THE plaintiff further averred that out of this amount Rs. 22,850/- were paid to him in cash on 7-12-56 by way of first instalment of interim compensation and Rs. 6315/-were paid to him as the amount of second and third instalments of interim compensation on 25-1-58. Besides this the plaintiff admitted to have received Rs. 44. 18 paise in cash after the institution of the suit. THE remaining amount was payable to the plaintiff in 30 equal 6 monthly instalments for which bonds were to be given. THE plaintiff proceeded to say that though the bonds came to be handed over to him for the entire period and they were delivered on 14-2-64 for the amount of Rs. 1,62,600/-the amount of interest mentioned for the instalments that had fallen due till the date of the delivery of bonds was less than what was required to be paid in terms of the final order Ex. 1 passed by the Jagir Commissioner and in accordance with the provisions of sec. 26 read with sec. 38a of the Act. THE claim is thus in respect of the difference in the interest on the instalments that had already become payable when the bonds were delivered. Likewise, bonds for the amount of Rs. 10,000/-were paid to the plaintiff on 19 8-64 and in respect of the instalments that had fallen due till that date the plaintiff has put forth a similar claim regarding difference in the interest that was payable in terms of the final order of the Jagir Commissioner as also in accordance with sec. 26 read with sec. 38-A of the Act. This amount of the difference in the interest that was payable came to Rs. 12,250. 70 paise. The State admitted that the compensation payable to the plaintiff was determined by the Jagir Commissioner in a sum of Rs. 2,01,810. 50 paise and that against this Rs. 29,165 were paid in cash and for the remainder bonds were delivered to the plaintiff. It denied that the plaintiff was entitled to recover any difference in the interest on instalments as claimed by him. It was further pleaded that a civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter by virtue of sec. 46 of the Act and, it was urged that the suit was barred by time. The learned District Judge held that S. 46 of the Act did not debar the civil court from taking cognizance of the suit of the present nature. He observed that the amount of compensation had been settled by the Jagir Commissioner and the rate of interest was also settled by the state and there was therefore nothing which was required to be decided any more under the Act, nor was anything required to be dealt with by any officer under the Act. as there was no officer named in the Act for enforcing the payment of the compensation money. The only issue between the parties according to learned Judge was whether the plaintiff was entitled to get a certain sum of money at a certain rate of interest and, if so for what period and regarding this a civil court was not precluded from trying the question. As regards the question of limitation, the learned Judge observed that the amount of the compensation covered by the bonds was payable in instalment and interest could be realised only when instalments would fall due, and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amount only after he received the bonds and when the instalments would have fallen due. The suit, according to the learned Judge, was thus within time. Lastly, the learned Judge held that bonds did not include the interest that would be payable till the delivery of bonds on the instalments that had fallen due till the date of delivery of such bonds. In the result, he awarded a decree for Rs. 250. 70 paise in favour of the plaintiff and against the State. The contentions have again been raised here in assailing the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge (1) that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit; (2) the suit was barred by time and (3) that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any interest beyond what was already mentioned in the bonds that were issued and delivered to the plaintiff. I may deal with the above contentions in the order they were advanced. To start with I may read sec. 46 of the Act : "sec. 46 Bar of jurisdiction - (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act. (2) No order made by any such officer of authority, under this Act shall be called in question in any Court. " Sub-sec. (1) bars the jurisdiction of any civil or revenue court in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act. Sub-sec. (2) protects order made by any such officer or authority under this Act and they cannot be called in question in any court. The question that falls for determination is whether this is a suit in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act or for that matter any order made by any such officer or authority is being questioned before the civil court. Having considered the various provisions, I find myself in agreement with the learned District Judge in holding that this is not a type of suit whose cognisance can be said to be barred by sec. 46 of the Act. I may read here sec. 26 of the Act : "sec. 26. Liability to pay compensation - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Government shall be liable to pay to every Jagirdar whose Jagir lands are resumed under sec. 21, such compensation as shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the second schedule. (2) Compensation payable under this section shall be due as from the date of resumption and shall carry simple interest at rate of 2\ percent per annum from that date upto date of payment : Provided that no interest shall be payable on any amount of compensation which remains unpaid for any default of the Jagirdar, his agent or the represen-tative-in interest. " It lays down the Government's liability to pay compensation to a Jagirdar whose jagir lands have been resumed under the Act. Such compensation has to be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the second schedule and further S. 26 is subject to other provisions of the Act. The compensation payable under this section shall be due as from the date of resumption shall carry simple interst at the rate of 2f % per annum from that date upto of the date of payment. This is subject to the proviso that no interest shall be payable on any amount of compensation which remains unpaid on account of any fault of the Jagirdar or his agent or representative in interest. This section, therefore, casts the liability to pay the compensation on the State Government and once the compensation has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the State Government is expected to discharge that liability. The Jagir Commissioner is the authority who determines the compensation under sec. 32 of the Act. Sec. 35 of the Act lays down how the compensation is payable. I may read this section - "sec. 35. Payment of compensation - (1) After the amount of compensation payable to a Jagirdar under sec. 26 is finally determined under sub sec. (2) of sec. 32 and the amounts speci6ed in clauses (b), (. . .) and (e) of that section as finally determined are deducted therefrom the balance shall be divided into fifteen equal annual instalments or at the option of the jagirdar into thirty equal half yearly instalments. (2) The amounts finanlly determined under each of the clauses (b), (c), (. . .) and (e) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32 shall be deducted and paid to each of the persons entitled thereto from every instalment referred to in sub-sec. (1) and the remaining amount of the instalment shall be payable by the Government to the Jagirdar. (3) Where compensation under this Act is payable to - (a) a minor or person suffering from a legal disability who is under the superintence of the Court of Wards, the compensation money shall be paid to the Court of Wards : (b) a minor or a person suffering from a legal disability who is not under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, the compensation money shall be paid to the person found by the Collector upon inquiry in the prescribed manner to be the natural guardian of such minor or disabled person according to his personal law ; Provided that in cases in which the question of such guardianship is in dispute, the Collector shall apply to the District Judge having jurisdiction to determine such question and to appoint a guardian of the minor or disabled person for the purposes of this section. (4) The payment of compensation money under this Act to a Jagirdar and to (. . .) co-sharers and to persons entitled to a maintenance allowance, if any, shall be a full discharge of the liability to pay compensation in lieu of the resumption of his jagir lands by the Government but shall not prejudice the rights to which any other person may be entitled by process of law to enforce against the person to whom any amount has been so paid. " Sub-sec. (4) clearly lays down that the payment of compensation money under this Act to a Jagirdar and to co-sharers and to persons entitled to maintenance allowance, if any, shall be full discharge of the Government from the liability to pay compensation in lieu of the resumption of his Jagir lands by the Government, but shall not prejudice the rights to which any other person may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom any amount has been so paid. It is the payment of compensation to a Jagirdar as determined by the Jagir Commissioner and in the manner laid down by the Act that results in discharge of the liability of the Government. There are rules framed under the Act entitled 'the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs (Compensation and Rehabilitation Bond) Rules, 1956, hereinafter to be referred as the "bond Rules. R. 3 of the Bonds Rules lays down that : "subject to the other provisions of these and the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules, 1964, the compensation and rehabilitation grant including the additional rehabilitation grant finally determined as payable to a jagirdar or a co-sharer under the Act, will be paid in cash or in negotiable bonds partly in cash or partly in bonds, as the Jagir Commissioner,or the Collector of the district,as the case may be,may in each decide case on the application of the jagirdar concerned. The bonds for compensation & rehabilitation grant including the additional rehabilitation grant payable under Cl. 3 of the Third Schedule to the Act, shall called the "rajasthan Jagir Resumption Compensation and Rehabilitation Bonds" and the bonds for the additional rehabilitation grant payable under sec. 38 E of the Act shall be called the Rajasthan Jagir Resumption Additional Rehabilitation Bonds : Rule 4 of the Bond Rules lays down the denominations of the bonds. They will be issued in denomination of Rs. 50,100,200,500,1,000,5,000,10,000 and 25,000 The bonds shall bear simple interest at the rate of 2-1/2 percent per annum on the principal that has not become payable, calculated from the date of resumption. No interest shall be payable on any amount of principal beyond the date on which its payment fell due even though the sum is not realised by the holder of the bond. What is to be noticed in this rule is that the bonds shall bear interest for the principal amount that has not become payable and that has to be calculated from the date of resumption. In other words, for whatever amount has become payable the bonds need not show any interest. The intention here seems to be that whatever part of compensation has become payable on or before a particular date has to be so paid with interest at the statutory rate of 2. 5% per annum vide (sec. 26 of the Act) from the date of resumption till payment delivery of the bonds. Rule 5 is about the instalments and it lays down that the amount of the bonds would be paid in 15 equal annual instalments or 30 equal half-yearly instalments at the option of the Jagirdar along with the interest then accrued due on the bond. This rule also contemplates that at the time of the payment of the instalments the interest that has accrued so far has to be paid. Now, the perusal of the Act and these Rules show that the Jagir Commissioner is the authority who determines the compensation. It is he who again decides as to how much amount out of the compensation determined by him is to be paid in cash and how much by bonds, but the Act or the Rules do not in so many words make the Jagir Commissioner or any other officer responsible for the payment of the compensation. For that the statute has created the liability on the Government themselves. Consequently regarding the actual discharge of the Government's liability if any steps are taken by the Jagir Commissioner or the Collector or by any other officer of the Government for that matter the officers will be taken to have acted only as executive hands of the State Government and cannot be taken to be discharging any function under the Act or the Rules. In certain matters like deter-mination of compensation the Jagir Commissioner acts quasi judicially as a Tribunal holding the scales even between the Government as a party on one hand and the ex-Jagirdar, on the other, but regarding the actual discharge of the Government's liability to pay compensation, once it is determined, none of these officers can be said to act otherwise than as the limb of the executive Government. Where the matter lies within the sphere of the discharge of the Government's liability to pay the compensation as determined by the Jagir Commissioner, sec. 46 of the Act can hardly be taken to operate and create a bar against the filing of a suit in a civil court when the Government are alleged to have failed to discharge their legal obligation arising under the Act. Now the perusal of the order Ex. 1 further confirms me in this That order shows that the Jagir Commissioner has determined the net amount payable to the plaintiff ex-Jagirdar at Rs. 2,01,809. 50 paise. It is also mentioned in the order that "the net amount payable will carry simple interest at 2-1/2 d- c. per annum from the date of resumption to the date of payment. " This order clearly shows that the Jagir Commissioner had nothing more to do in the matter. The Act or the Rules do not provide any machinery for the enforcement of the order of the Jagir Commissioner Ex. 1 in the event of the Government not complying with the order of the Jagir Commissioner. The remedy in a civil court would, therfore, be available to a party. The learned District Judge has, therefore, correctly decided this question in favour of the plaintiff. There is no force whatsoever in the plea that the suit was barred by time. Order Ex. 1 bears the date 16-7-63. The suit was filed by the palintiff on 8-5-65. The claim is for the interest that remained unpaid on the instalments that had already fallen due when the bonds were delivered to the plaintiff. Before the passing of the order Ex 1 by the Jagir Commissioner the plaintiff was not in a position to file a suit for principal or interest as nothing was determined till that date. Therefore, the plaintiff could file the suit within three years of the delivery of the bonds to him, as before the bonds come to him he would not be in position to claim interest in respect of any instalment that had fallen due till that date. There is no dispute that the bonds were delivered to the plaintiff in 1964. Thus, the suit would be clearly within time.
(3.) TO appreciate the last question about the difference in interest I may refer to a copy of the bonds brought on record. Ex 4 may be referred to. Till 31-1-64, 19 instalments had fallen due. The relevant extract from Ex. 4 is as follows : Principal Amount Rs. 25. 000 Half-yearly instalment of principal at Rs. 833. 33 during the first twenty-nine half years and Rs. 833. 43 on the thirtieth half year. S. No Half year ending Principal Rs. np. Interest Rs. np. Balance of Principal Rs. np. 1 2 3 4 5 1. 31 Jan. 1955 833. 33 312. 50 24,166 67 2. 31 Jul. 1955 833. 33 302 08 23,333. 34 3. 31 Jan. 1956 833. 33 291. 67 22,500. 01 4. 31 Jul. 1956 83333 281. 25 21,666. 68 5. 31 Jan. 1957 833. 33 270. 83 20 833. 35 6. 31 Jul. 1957 833. 33 260. 42 20,000. 02 7. 31 Jan. 1958 833. 33 250. 60 19,166 69 8. 31 Jul. 1958 833. 33 239. 58 18,333. 36 9. 31 Jan. 1959 833. 33 229. 17 17,500. 03 10. 31 Jul 1959 833. 33 218. 75 16,666. 70 11. 31 Jan. 1960 833. 33 208. 33 16833. 57 12. 31 Jul. 1960 833 33 197. 82 15,000. 04 13. 31 Jan. 1961 833. 33 187. 50 14,16671 14. 31 Jul. 1961 833. 33 177. 08 13,333. 38 15.31 Jan. 1962 833. 33 166. 67 12,500. 05 16. 31 Jul. 1962 833. 33 156. 25 11,666. 72 17. 31 Jan. 1963 833. 33 145 83 10,833. 39 18. 31 Jul. 1963 833. 33 135. 42 10,000. 06 19. 31 Jan. 1964 833. 33 125. 00 99,166. 73 Now, according to the plain language of sec 26 or even in terms of the decision of Jagir Commissioner Ex. 1, interest was payable from the date of resumption namely, 1-8-54 till the payment. Here, it will be till the delivery of the bonds. As I have already noticed, for the unpaid amount the interest has to be shown in the bonds and for the instalments that have already fallen due, the interest has to be paid at the time of payment or the delivery of the bonds. Now, all the instalments which had fallen due in Ex. 4 should have carried an equal amount of interest namely, Rs. 312. 50 paise, but this is not so, The column regarding the balance of principal shows that the principal has been reduced progressively even though the instalment had not been paid. Now these bonds have been printed by the Reserve Bank and it is understandable that they would be breaking the amount on the face of the bond in instalments they would be showing the balance of principal after each instalment on the assumption that the instalment would be regularly paid as and when they would be falling due. They were perhaps not mindful of the contingency as to what would happen in the events of the instalments being not paid as and when they would be falling due. Since thousands of cases of ex-Jagirdars had to be dealt with and millions of rupees were to be paid this standard form of bonds was introduced and the bonds of various denominations were issued. Nevertheless that cannot affect the liability of the State Government arising from sec. 26 read with sec. 38 of the Act. Also that cannot affect the liability that was determined by the Jagir Commissioner vide the order Ex. 1 As I have already noticed by this order the Jagir Commissioner has directed that the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 2. 5 percent per annum from the date of resumption of Jagir till payment The i controversy boils down to this; the plaintiff claims interest at Rs. 312 50 paise for each of 19 instalments. The defendant State, on the other hand, sticks its to guns and reiterates that whatever is mentioned in the bond as interest that alone is payable. It is the end of the matter and the plaintiff consequently cannot claim anything over and above that. I am unable to assent to this. The liability has been created by the statute and has tobe discharged in terms of the statute. The interest mentioned in the bonds in respect of the instalments that had already fallen due at the time of the delivery of the bonds is not decisive or conclusive. For the instalments that would be falling due after the delivery of the bond there would be no difficulty as it would be for the ex Jagirdar or his representative in interest to claim the instalments with interest as and when they would be falling due. The learned Additional Government Advocate was asked to sit with learned counsel for the respondent and check up if there was any error in arriving at the amount of difference in the interest as claimed by the plaintiff and what is mentioned in the bonds. The learned Additional Government Advocate had one day at his disposal for this and he has not been able to challenge the correctness of the amount determined by the learned District Judge. I have also examined the position and do not find any error in the determination of the amount. The result is that the appeal is without force and accordingly it is hereby dismissed with costs. .;