- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Jagirdar under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 against the order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir dated 24. 10. 61.
(2.) THE learned Deputy Collector has only held that the Jagirdar appellant has failed to prove his contentions regarding the incomes claimed by him notwithstanding having been given sufficient opportunities and, therefore, the claim already finalised on 8. 7. 60 need not be changed in any manner and was thereby confirmed. A brief reference to the history of the case will be necessary here. The claim preferred by the appellant was finalised by the learned Deputy Collector on 8. 7. 60. The Jagirdar feeling aggrieved with it preferred an appeal to the Board which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Deputy Collector on 15. 12. 60. The contention raised in that appeal on behalf of the appellant was that the Jagir was unsettled in the basic year and, therefore, the compensation should have been calculated on the basis of produce rents and further that the claims in respect of mines and excise should not have been rejected arbitrarily and the account books produced in the office of the Jagir Commissioner in connection with another claim should have been allowed to be produced. It was found after perusing the record that the appellant was present and had raised objections on 26. 12. 59 regarding the income from excise and mines and that the learned Deputy Collector had ordered the making of enquiries into them. What happened thereafter could not be found out from the record and the only thing that could be established was that the claim was finally determined on 30. 5. 60. The contention of the appellant that he had no notice of the date 26. 12. 59 could not be negatived on the basis of the entries in the record because of its having been maintained in such a way as making it difficult to follow. The appeal was, therefore, accepted, the order of the learned Deputy Collector set aside and the case was remanded with the direction that it be tried and decided afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the judgment. On remand what the learned Deputy Collector Jagir did was to issue notice to the appellant to produce his evidence. The case continued to be adjourned either because of the absence of the learned Deputy Collector or the Jagirdar for about 8 or 9 months and the Order being impugned in this appeal was passed. The contention raised by the appellant is that the learned Deputy Collector has confirmed the judgment dated 8. 7. 60 when in fact there was no judgement of this date and previously the claim had been finalised not on 8. 7. 60 but on 30. 5. 60. This is a fact as would be evident from the perusal of the record. The case was decided on 30. 5. 60 and not on 8-7 60. The latter is only a date on which the copies of the judgment were endorsed to the Jagirdar and other concerned parties. This does not make the decision to be dated 8. 7. 60 instead of 30. 5. 60. This shows the very superficial manner in which the Deputy Collector has disposed of the case after remand. The learned Government Advocate has very vehemently urged that a perusal of the order sheet of the case after remand will go to show that the Jagirdar appellant has been very very careless in attending to this case and has himself failed miserably to produce the evidence required of him. This may be correct to some extent. But at the same time it cannot be overlooked that the appellant had been contending first for the calculating of his rental income on unsettled basis and secondly for the calculating of the incomes from excise and mines paid to the Jagirdar. After examining previous proceedings, the Board had held that after 26. 12. 59 it was not possible to find out how these claims were determined by the learned Deputy Collector after this date. An examination of the record of this case also goes to show that there is nothing on the record to establish that the copy of the provisional award had-been served on the appellant to enable him to file any objection against it. The award had been determined provisionally on 30. 4. 59. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant did receive the notice on 30. 5. 59 for the final determination of the award. When it was so and when it had been found by the Board while disposing of the previous appeal that how the case progressed after 26. 12. 59 and was disposed of finally was not made out from the record and, therefore, the case deserved to be tried and decided afresh, it was the duty of the learned Deputy Collector to enquire into all the three claims, e. g. regarding rental income and incomes from excise and mines put forward by the appellant and decide them in accordance with law. For the purpose, the learned Deputy Collector must have first brought on record as to what was the income under the various heads claimed by the appellant and on what basis and thereafter enquire into them. If he wanted the appellant to produce any evidence, he should have made specific issues or fixed the points to be proved specifically and then alone asked the appellant to produce evidence in support thereof. It cannot be avoided to be observed here that all the three claims raised on behalf of the appellant referred to above required much less the production of the evidence by the appellant than the verification thereof from the records of the Govt. or the records already produced by the appellant. at the time of the resumption of the Jagir. For determining rental income the demand needed to be verified by the Tehsil. It was only when the Tehsil did not verify the claim made by the Jagirdar in his behalf that the appellant if he insisted on his claim could be asked and expected to produce evidence in support thereof. As for the claim for the income from mines, the procedure prescribed in Rule 37b of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules 1954 should have been followed. Regarding the claim for the income from excise, the provision in law is that provided in clause 2 (h) of the Second Schedule of the Act. It was the amount of compensation paid in cash by the Government to the Jagirdar for the taking over of the excise administration and the production of excisable articles in Jagir land calculated on the basis of average income for 3 years preceding the basic year that could have formed the gross income of the Jagir under this head. This again needed an enquiry from the Government Department concerned more than the production of the evidence by the Jagirdar himself. Thus, there is no way out of the finding that the learned Deputy Collector has failed miserably in the present case in following the procedure prescribed by law in this behalf to determine the claims made by the appellant. With this finding about the enquiry by the learned Deputy Collector, it becomes immaterial how far the appellant has been negligent in availing of the opportunities offered to him for producing his evidence. The appellant has stated some reasons for his not being present on the dates fixed. No exception has been taken by the Govt. Advocate or the Deputy Collector to them, nor his claims have been rejected in default. Rather, a decision has been given against him on the day he was absent after having adjourned the case many a time before that. The scheme of the Act is to grant the Jagirdar compensation and rehabilitation grant in lieu of the resumption of his Jagir. By the very nature of the various items of income, different modes of enquiry have been prescribed by the Rules regarding various items. It is expected of the officer acting under the Act to adopt those modes of enquiry and face the Jagirdar with the results thereof and offer him an opportunity of meeting them and thereafter enquire into the objections raised by him enabling him to produce evidence in support of his contentions. If this procedure is observed, and the Jagirdar makes a default notwithstanding the granting of opportunities to him, it may be justified to reject his claims on that basis, but where the procedure itself is followed more in breach than in observance such an action could not be called to be justified. This is a case in our opinion where the learned Deputy Collector has really observed the procedure of enquiry laid down by the Act and the Rules more in breach than in observance. He has done so notwithstanding the case having been once remanded to him with the clear directions that the claim should be enquired and decided afresh. The result has been unnecessary harassment of the appellant and the prolongation of the case. The officers acting under the Act are expected to follow the procedure prescribed strictly so as to expedite the disposal of the case and save the parties from unnecessary harassment by the prolongation of the case and the consequent delays in the payment of the amounts of compensation. We have, therefore, been left with no option but to remand this case again with the specific direction again to the learned Deputy Collector that he would first find out from the appellant as to what are the amounts that he claims under the three heads, rental income, excise and mines and thereafter get them verified from the Departments concerned and in case the claims are not verified by the Departments, the Jagirdar be asked to produce his evidence in support of the claims and an opportunity be given to the Government also to rebutt the same. It should be only after this enquiry that claims should be decided finally and the final ward already given be redetermined in accordance with law, if necessary, and we order accordingly. As the case has become very old and the appellant is remaining deprived of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation payable to him we are fixing at his request date 17. 12. 62 on which the appellant shall appear before the learned Deputy Collector for the hearing of this case. The learned Govt. Advocate has also taken note of this date. The parties, therefore, need not be informed afresh by the learned Deputy Collector. They would appear on that date of their own accord. The learned Deputy Collector should in the meanwhile make any reference that may be necessary to the various Government agencies and try to obtain their replies, if possible to be able to hear the parties about them on the date fixed. .;