- (1.) THIS is an appeal u|s 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 against the order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Chittorgarh, dated the 24th April, 1959, by which he has rejected the claim of the appellants for being recognised as the sub-grantee of the jagir Achlawda.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the jagir of Achlawda was resumed from the possession of Bhawani Singh Jagirdar, who had distributed his jagir after 1949 amongst his married daughters and wife. THE appellants are the two married daughters of the jagirdar. THE jagirdar had admittedly no male issue. THE question, therefore, arose whether he had not so distributed the jagir with view to get more amount of compensation and the Sub-grants which were may not hit by Sec. 26 (a) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. THE learned Deputy Collector, Jagir came to the conclusion that sub-grants had been made not in the normal course, of the management of the jagir, but in an unusual manner in anticipation of the resumption thereof and could not, therefore, be allowed to be recognised. The decision of the learned Deputy Collector has been assailed on behalf of the appellants firstly and mainly on the ground that the expression the Jagirdar in the last line of Sec. 26 (a) referred only the Jagirdar whose jagir had been' resumed and not to his sub-grantees and that therefore no sub-grants could be taken to be hit by this section so as to affect adversely the interest of the sub-grantee to get compensation therefrom. This argument is based on a misconception of the effect of the refusal to recognise a sub-grant for the purpose of assessment of compensation and rehabilitation. Sec. 26 (a) lays down that where a jagirdar has on or after the first day of January, 1949 transferred any jagir land by sale or gift or by making a grant and the Jagir Commissioner is satisfied that such transfer was made not in the normal coarse of management, but in anticipation of the resumption of the jagir, the Jagir Commissioner will direct that such transfer shall not be recognised for the purpose of assessment of rehabilitation or compensation grant payable to the Jagirdar. The very result of the refusal of this recognition for the purpose of assessment of compensation or rehabilitation grant payable to the jagirdar whose jagir has been resumed and from whose jagir the sub-grant has been made will be that the sub-grant being claimed by the sub-grantee will be taken for the purposes of calculation of compensation and rehabilitation to be a part of the main jagir itself and the sub-grantee will be left with no jagir or grant which could be deemed to have been resumed from his possession and for which he could claim and be granted any amount of compensation or rehabilitation. Even though therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the expression "the jagirdar" referred to above refers only to the main jagirdar and not to sub-grantee is correct, the non-recognition of the sub-grant under this section does not in any way save the sub-grant in favour of the sub-grantee. The other contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the rules prescribed for the enquiry into such matters have not been followed. The relevant rule in this behalf is Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954. It requires a Jagir Commissioner to enquire whether the grant made by a Jagirdar is in consonance with the practice in the jagir itself and the jagirs of similar income and status in the integrating unit to which the jagir belonged. While holding such an enquiry he is required to follow the procedure laid down in Rules 23 to 28 mutatis mutandis. The procedure laid down in those rules is that notices will be served on all concerned and opportunity should be given to all of them in contesting the claim and that the enquiry shall be made in the same manner as the trial of a suit by a Revenue Court. Now, it is not the case here that notice was not served upon the appellants. Nor it is a case that an opportunity was not given to them to claim or to establish the custom and practice for the sub-grants in the jagir itself and the jagirs of similar income and status. The only thing that can be claimed is that a public notice of such an enquiry has not been issued. It was not, however, necessary to follow the procedure laid down by Rules 23 to 28 without any change. It was to be followed only so far as it could be made applicable to the requirements of the particular case. In the present case we are satisfied that requirement has been fulfilled and the procedure that was necessary to be followed has been followed. Further, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there was a practice in the jagirs of similar status and income to make sub-grants in favour of the daughters as well. In the first place the evidence produced does not anywhere go to establish that such sub-grants will be made even to married daughters long after their marriage as has been done in this case. Besides, there has been led no evidence to prove that the sub-grants could be made in such a manner as to leave only a minor fraction of jagir with the present jagirdar himself. In the present case the sub-grants have been made so lavishly that the main jagirdar has been left not even with a very small fraction thereof. The sub-grants compare very unfavourably with the grants made to the Chhutbhai. It, therefore, cannot be held that the grants have been made in consonance with the past practice of the jagir. There is thus no force in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .;