- (1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State Government under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated the 14th September, 1960 regarding the adding to the rental income of the income accruing from Sawai Lagan amounting to Rs. 2681. 30 np. A cross-objection has also been preferred on behalf of the Jagirdar/respondent. By it has been questioned the Final Awards regarding the rental income, the tribute amounting to Rs. 255/14/9 deducted as being paid to Thikana Khandela Bada Pana, and the amount of compensation fixed for Excise.
(2.) IT may be observed here that the Award in this case had been finalised on 30th January, 1960 itself. A review was preferred by the Jagirdar/respondent against that order on 13th April, 1960. IT is against this reviewed judgment that this appeal as well as the cross objection has been preferred. The review was preferred on four points e. g. (1) the income from Muskarat (2) the deduction of 15% administrative charges on the Excise income (3) the rental income for the village Kotdi Lohareas (4) the amount of tribute paid by the Jagirdar to the Thikana Khandela Bada Pana. It was accepted on the first two points but was rejected on the last two points. The rental income from Sawai Lagan contested on behalf of the State Government has been allowed by the learned Jagir Commissioner making it subject to the decision of the Board of Revenue, with a simple observation that the Jagirdar has submitted that the amount in excess of the rent fixed by the Settlement had been charged because of the change in the soil-classing made by the Jagirdar. In the first place, the learned Jagir Commissioner must have passed his final order in the matter and not kept it subject to the decision by the Board. The Board hears the appeals against his order under sec. 39 of the Act. In appeal an order can be passed only when the learned Jagir Commissioner has disposed of a matter finally. Secondly, there has not been found anything on the record to show how and when, under what orders, whether by a competent authority or not the change in the soil classing and assessment has been made. The learned Jagir Commissioner should have, therefore, found definitely as to what was the rent rate fixed by the Settlement authorities over the land under dispute and how and when the same was changed and under what competence. Only if he came to the conclusion that the revision had been done by a competent authority having a jurisdiction to do so, the amount claimed should have been treated legally to be the rental income of the disputed land and allowed. The appeal cannot therefore, but be accepted, as has been conceded to by the learned counsel for the Jagirdar/ respondent also so rightly, and the case remanded to the learned Jagir Commissioner for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. Now, regarding the cross-objections raised on behalf of the respondent/jagirdar. The cross-objection for the compensation from the Excise Administration is not against the dis-allowing thereof but only about a mistake in calculation. Having accepted the review petition, the learned Jagir Commissioner has raised the amount of compensation under this head from originally fixed sum of Rs. 5852. 58 np. to Rs. 6885. 38 np. after enhancing it by 15%. The contention is that the decision was on the basis of the Government order that the 15% cut made in the amount of compensation paid to the jagirdar/respondent on account of taking over the Excise administration should not be made. On this basis it is being urged that the income originally allowed should not have been merely enhanced by 15% but the 15% cut in the compensation made should have been restored. There is force in this contention, Vide Clause 2 (h) of the Second Schedule of the Act, for the calculation of the gross income of the Jagirdar it is the amount of compensation paid in cash by the Government to the Jagirdar for taking over the Excise administration which is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the whole amount of compensation so paid by the Government is to be calculated, and there does not arise any question of decrease or increase by any percentage in any manner whatsoever. The learned Jagir Commissioner should, therefore, re-fix this amount on this basis. The objections regarding the rental income from village Kota Luharwas and the deductions on account of the tribute paid to Thikana Khandela Bada Pana, however, stand on a different footing. These points were agitated by the Jagirdar by way of review petition which was rejected. The question, therefore, arises whether they can be raised again by way of cross objection or not. It is quite clear that vide order 47 Rule 7 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code no appeal lies against a review petition rejected. Cross objection can also be preferred under O. 41, R. 22 of the C. P. C. only on the points which could have been taken by the respondent by way of appeal. As the respondent could not have taken these points of rental income from Kotri Luharwas and the amount of tribute deducted by way of appeal after the rejection of his review petition on these points,he cannot be allowed to raise these points by way of cross-objections too. In result, the State appeal is accepted and the case remanded so far as it relates to the rental income on account of Sawai Lagan amounting to Rs. 2681. 30 np. to the Jagir Commissioner for determination afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. So far as the cross-objections raised by the respondent go they are accepted only on the point of compensation on account of Excise Administration and the case remanded to re-determine it in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The cross-objections on other points shall stand rejected. . ;