- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred u/s. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Addl. Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 22. 5. 61 by which he ordered the exclusion of a tank known by the name of Khartana from the list of personal property of the Jagir Kakarwa. The reason that has found favour with the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner, as would be evident from the perusal of his order, is that the Kamdar of the Jagirdar had admitted during the course of the enquiry by the S. D. O. (to whom the enquiry had been entrusted by the learned Addl. Jagir Commissioner) that irrigation was being done out of this land and that "the book in which the receipt of irrigation-fees has been entered was produced before me by the Tehsildar. It fully corroborates the version of S. D. O. Ballabhnagar". There is nothing, however, on the record to show that any person had been examined by the Jagirdar or by anybody else as Kamdar of the appellant. Rather there does not exist on record any recorded statement even. The "book" referred to above is also not on the record. The learned Govt. Advocate has, therefore, found it very difficult to support the order under appeal. He has, therefore, conceded frankly, and rightly so, that the order impugned cannot be upheld and deserves to be set aside and the case remanded for enquiry in accordance with law.
(2.) UNDER Rule 23 of the Rules made under the Act the Jagir Commissioner can inquire into the list of the personal property of a Jagirdar whose Jagir has been resumed under the Act. He has to appoint a date not less than two months from the date of the order and issue a public notice thereof within a week of such order for the purpose. Such a notice is to be served vide Rule 24 on the Jagirdar concerned, the Revenue Secretary to the Government and the Collector of the district in which the property in dispute is situated in the same manner as is provided for the service of summons on a defendant in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The copies of the notices are to proclaimed by beat of drum to the inhabitants of the locality in which such property is situated, to be exhibited at some conspicuous place in such locality (through the Tehsildar concerned) and thereafter also to be posted on the Notice Board of the Tehsil. Vide Rule 25 the enquiry is to be postponed if notices are found not to have been served in time or any other compliance referred to above is not found to have been done. The State through the Collector or any other officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar or Collector may appoint and the inhabitants of the locality in which the property is situated if they are in any manner interested therein may all contest, Vide Rule 26, the claim of the Jagirdar, and may jointly appoint one or more persons not exceeding three in number to represent them at such inquiry. Vide Rule 27, the Jagirdar may also appear in person or by his recognised agent at any such inquiry. All such persons are to be given, vide Rule 28, a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove their respective contentions and the enquiry has to be held in the manner provided for the trial of the suit by a revenue court. Vide Rule 23 (2) the Jagir Commissioner may also entrust the enquiry to any Officer not below the rank of Assistant Jagir Commissioner or S. D. O. instead of enquiring himself. Where such an enquiry is so entrusted, Vide Rule 28, the Officer so enquiring shall submit the record with the report of his finding to the Jagir Commissioner for his order. Obviously, all the enquiry referred to above shall mean an enquiry in which all the evidence of all the parties interested and contesting shall produce their evidence which shall be brought on record. The depositions of the witnesses have to be recorded in writing. So are the documentary evidence produced by them to be properly tendered in evidence and exhibited. We do not find from the record, as has been conceded by the learned Govt. Advocate as well, that the enquiry has been done in this manner by the Addl. Jagir Commissioner or by the S. D. O. to whom it appears to have been entrusted. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Addl. Jagir Commissioner and remand the case to him with the direction that he shall now proceed to enquire into thw matter in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. .;