- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated the 24th December, 1959, arising under the following circumstances: The appellant is the mother of the Jagirdar respondent Shri Prem Singh. She was held entitled to the grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per annum fixed for the purpose. She also drew three instalments amounting to Rs. 3,600/- on that account. When the award was finalised, however, it was found that the respondent was entitled to receive Rs. 27,848. 63 np. in all as compensation and rehabilitation grant. It was further found that the jagirdar respondent had already drawn Rs. 23,631/-as three interim instalments towards this amount, besides Rs. 3600/- having been already paid to the appellant, and therefore the only amount that remained to be paid on account of compensation and rehabilitation grant was Rs. 617. 63 np. Out of this an amount of Rs. 604. 75 were to be paid to the Agricultural Income Tax Officer and the learned Jagir Commissioner, therefore made no order regarding the payment of remaining amount of maintenance allowance to applicant.
(2.) THE contention on behalf of the appellant is that vide sec. 27 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a person entitled to receive a maintenance allowance out of the income of a Jagir shall be entitled to receive out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant "payable to the jagirdar" such amount of maintenance annually as the Jagir Commissioner may fix after taking into consideration the various factors laid down therein, and further that vide Sub-sec. (2) of that section notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1) the Government may in the case of a widow entitled to get such maintenance allowance continue to pay out of the consolidated fund of the State whole or part of the maintenance allowance during her life time even after the grant "payable" under this Act being paid to the Jagirdar. In this particular case, it is contended that the appellant was entitled to get maintenance allowance out of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation "payable to the jagirdar" respondent for as many years as the respondent himself was entitled to be paid compensation in the form of multiples laid down by clause 5 of the Second Schedule of the Act and clause (3) of the Third Schedule of the Act. In other words, it is contended that the amount of maintenance should have been allowed to be paid to the appellant for atleast twelve years. THEre is force in this contention. THE learned Jagir Commissioner, does not even seem to have considered the case from this point of view, not to speak of giving any reasons for not allowing the appellant maintenance allowance for the requisite number of years. Besides, the very ground which has perhaps made him remain silent over this side of the case that the Jagirdar respondent had already taken almost the whole amount by way of the interim instalments was not justified. An interim instalment could be paid to the Jagirdar only in terms of sec. 36 of the Act read with sec. 36-A thereof. It could be no more than 1/10th of the estimated amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant and it was to be inclusive of any interim payment ordered u/s 36 A to be made by way of interim maintenance to the maintenance holders or an interim share to the co-sharers. Further the payment was to be made only after the obtaining of a security or an indemnity bond by the Jagirdar concerned. Besides, the future interim instalments of compensation were to be paid only in such fractions as the Government determined. Under the circumstances, it was mandatory for the learned Jagir Commissioner to have determined as to how the whole of the amount was paid away by way of interim compensation to the respondent jagirdar without deducting therefrom the share of the maintenance-holder and why the extra amount paid to the jagirdar be not recovered back from his surety or the jagirdar himself on the basis of the security and indemnity bonds and paid to the appellant as maintenance holder. Vide sec. 32 of the Act also the learned Jagir Commissioner was bound to determine the amount of the annual maintenance allowance payable to the persons no entitled. He could not have left this point undecided as he has done. This appeal is therefore, hereby accepted, the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner set aside so far as it relates to the final disposal of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to the jagirdar and the payment of maintenance allowance to the appellant was concerned; and the case remanded to him for passing order afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above in this behalf. It is also further directed that if the amount of interim compensation paid to the respondent jagirdar is found to have been paid contrary to the provisions of law in this behalf, action should be taken against the officers or officials making this irregular payment and further action should be taken to recover it from the appellant and his surety in accordance with law. If the payment of the interim instalment of compensation has been made ignoring the provisions of law, the officer and the officials concerned deserve to be dealt with firmly in order to prevent the chances of such recurrences in future. .;