- (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Collector, Ganganagar vide his order dated 26th October, 1961 against an order of a Division Bench of this Board itself.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to this reference are that a Granthi of a Gurdwara situated in village Baropal Tehsil Karanpur having died, the claim for mutation in his place was filed by Gurdev and Hukamchand. THE Tehsildar accepted the claim of Hukamchand and allowed mutation in his favour. In appeal the Additional Collector ordered mutation in equal shares in the names of both the claimants. In revision, the Board remanded the case setting aside the orders of the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector with the observation that with the passing of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955, the jurisdiction for deciding such cases rested only with the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector and not with the Tehsildar. On this remand the case came up for hearing before the Collector, Ganganagar. THE learned counsel appearing for the parties raised a point before the Collector that the land was a Maufi and not, therefore, governed either by the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 or the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955. THE contention was that the land was a "village Service Maufi" for rendering specific service to a village community. This argument appealed to the learned Collector who held that the case of such Maufi-holders were governed by sections 41 to 50 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and that under sec. 42 thereof the vacancies caused by death, etc, of such village servants were to be reported by the Patwari to the Tehsildar who had to take necessary action. It was further held by him that an appeal from the order of a Tehsildar lay, under sec. 75 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, to the Collector. Shri Hukamchand is represented by Shri Balkishen Pareek. Shri Gurdev Singh or his counsel have not, however, cared to put in appearance. We have heard Shri Bal Krishen Pareek at length and have also examined the record fully. Obviously, the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Collector have misconceived the case. The "village Service grant" has been defined by sec. 5 (45) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to mean a grant made in lieu of or as a remuneration for specific service to be performed to the village community or for the village administration and it is the holder of such a grant that is to be called a "village Servant". To be a "village Service Grant" therefore the grant should be for the community as a whole and not for a fraction thereof e. g. for Sikhs in case of Gurudwara or for Hindus in case of Temples or for Muslims in case of Mosques. This is a grant for maintenance and worship of the Gurudwara of which the deceased Santosh Dass was only Granthi. This was clearly a religious grant and not covered therefore by the expression "village Service grant". The expression "jagir" has been defined by sec. 2 (n) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 to include even a "maufi" grant as specified in the First Schedule thereto. In the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955, sec. 2 (a) the expression "jagir" has been assigned the same meaning as given by sec. 47 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act 1951. Sub Clause (1) of this sec. 47 says that "jagir" shall mean and include any grant of land or of an interest in land made by the Ruler or the Government for the time being in force of a covenanting State or recognised as having been so made. Thus there is no difference between "jagir" and "maufi" so far as the application of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 goes. Even a "muafi" of the kind under reference in this case will, therefore, be subject for the purposes of succession or mutation to the provisions of this Act. The learned Collector has referred to sec. 41 to 50 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 also. These sections deal with the Village Officers and servants e. g. Numberdars and the servants described in sec. 41 thereto. The Granthi of a Gurudwara does not come under that description. The reference to these sections also is, therefor, misconceived. The Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955, as amended upto date, very clearly says vide sec. 5 thereof that the cases and proceedings relating to the recognition and succession to the rights and titles of "jagirs" and Muafies" shall be instituted in the court of the Collector subject to the provisions laid therein. The case of mutation in the name of Granthi will, therefore, be heard and disposed of by the Collector in accordance with sec. 5 of this Act and by no other court or Officer. The learned Division Bench of the Board had therefore very rightly remanded, if we may say so with all respects, to the Collector and the learned Collector should not have made this interference with that order. Before parting with this case we would also like to observe that reference to the Board lies only under sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, and thereunder it is only the Commissioner, and not the Collector, who can make a reference to the Board. The Collector was therefore, even otherwise incompetent to make this reference. In view of this position in law we would have refrained from making the observations that we have done in the preceding paragraphs. But as it was very necessary to remove the misconception about the "village Service Grants" "and" Village Servants" we have deemed it fit to discuss the point and make above observations for guidance of the subordinate officers and courts. This reference is, therefore, hereby rejected. The learned Collector should now proceed to dispose of the the case according to law keeping in view the observations made above. .;