- (1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the orders of the Additional Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan dated 21st December, 1961 finalising the compensation claim of the appellant jagirdar. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also carefully examined the record.
(2.) VARIOUS items in the final award issued by the Additional Jagir Commissioner have been challenged in the appeal and we shall deal with them seriatim. Under the head "grazing" a sum of Rs. 263. 29 np. was provided in the provisional award but in the final award it was reduced to Rs. 10. 78 np. It was urged that this reduction was made although no issue on the subject was framed and the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard before effecting such reduction. We find from the final orders of the Additional Jagir Commissioner that the appellant's contention is fully borne out. Although this item has been dealt with by the Additional Jagir Commissioner under issue No. 1, this issue only deals with the rental income and therefore the income under grazing does not come under this head. The Additional Jagir Commissioner has given reasons for the reduction but even then it was only proper that before any reduction was made the appellant was given an opportunity to be heard. Since this was not done, we consider that this reduction requires to be re-examined after framing an issue and hearing the appellant. In view of such redetermination we do not wish at this stage to make any comments on the justification for the reduction made. It was urged in the same manner that a sum of Rs. 286,50 np. was included under the provisional award as the income from "non-agricultural uses of land" and that this was also reduced to Rs. 285. 83 np. without having framed any issue in the matter. Here also we find that no issue was framed and the appellant was not given an opportunity to rebut the reasons which prompted the Additional Jagir Commissioner to reduce the amount. Therefore, this amount also requires to be redetermined. The next item relates to the income from sale of land, A sum of Rs. 1001/3/6 was provided in the provisional award which was reduced to Rs, 88. 49 np. in the final award. This matter has been dealt with in issue No. 2. In support of the income claimed the jagirdar produced the Thikana Rokar and Patta Bahis from Samvat 1997 to A. D. 1942 and the Court of Wards record for the period from A. D. 1942 to 1953, when the Thikana was under the Court of Wards. So far as the Thikana record and Patta Bahis are concerned the learned Jagir Commissioner disbelieved them and the reasons therefor have been given. We do not see any reason to differ from his finding in this behalf. As regards the Court of Wards record it is the contention of the appellant that it was the same record which was believed by the Additional Jagir Commissioner in determining the income under "grazing" and "non-agricultural uses of land" and that there was no justification for not believing in such record in respect of the income under "sale of land". The Additional Jagir Commissioner has disallowed the income from transactions of sale of land exceeding Rs. 200/- each which were not registered. The question whether income from sales of Abadi land in respect of transactions which require to be registered under the Transfer of Properties Act and the Registration Act but were not registered. , should be included in calculating the compensation is being dealt with separately by a larger Bench of this Board; Any decision that may be arrived at in that connection will automatically apply to this case also. Therefore, we do not wish at this stage to express an opinion about the incomes disallowed by the Additional Jagir Commissioner on account of non-registration of sales. Since we are remanding this case for redetermination of other incomes, we shall leave this matter open and would direct that the Additional Jagir Commissioner should also re-examine the income under this head in the light of the decision that may be seven by the Board of Revenue finally in this matter. Three amounts namely Rs. 360/-, Rs. 631. 25 and Rs. 155/- represent the income from the sale of house, shop, Chabutra and other built property on which 1 /10th of the value has been allowed as the amount representing the value of the land covered by such construction. The learned counsel for the jagirdar objected to this proportion on the ground that it was arbitrary. We agree that to allow only 1/10th of the sale money as the value of land is clearly arbitrary. But this has been adopted as a working formula to arrive at the price of the land covered by such property. Since, however, the appellant has contested this amount a proper enquiry should be made to ascertain the prevailing market rate of land at the time when transactions took place and the amount should be redetermined after such enquiry. In this connection it was also urged that all the witnesses whom the appellant wanted to produce were not examined although he had deposited the Talbana amount for summoning them. We find from the file that on 4th January, 1961 the appellant put in an application desiring to have summons issued for a number of witnesses. These witnesses were required to give evidence in regard to sale of land. Out of 18 witnesses whom the appellant desired to summon, 7 witnesses appeared in response to the summons and were duly examined on 6. 5. 1961 viz. , Sarv Shri Rupchand, Bheru Prasad, Keshri Chand, Menu, Alla Bux, Badri and Bajrang. Another witness Banney Singh was examined on 12th July, 1961 and two witnesses Dau Lal and Ranjit Singh on 23rd August, 1961. On the previous day viz. , 22nd August, 1961 the Jagirdar had desired that the remaining witnesses may also be summoned and the court had ordered him to deposit the Talbana which he deposited but on the next day viz. , on 23rd August, 1961 the Jagirdar was not present. On this date the additional Jagir Commissioner observed that several opportunities had been given to the jagirdar to produce evidence and as he was not present on that date he closed the Jagirdar's evidence and the case was then posted to 31st August, 1961 for decision. It was for the appellant jagirdar to have pursued the matter and get the remaining witnesses also summoned but by absenting himself on 23rd August, 1961 he lost that opportunity. It was stated that a telegram had been sent by Jagirdar expressing his inability to attend the Additional Jagirdar Commissioner' Office owing to illness. We have not been able to trace any such telegram. In any case, it was for the appellant to have further taken up the matter with the Additional Jagir Commissioner. We, therefore, do not find any force in this contention. Another item disputed was in respect of the income under tribute (Tanka ). The learned Additional Jagir Commissioner framed issue No. 3 on this point but he observed that as no evidence was adduced by the Jagirdar on this issue, it was decided against him. In regard to this matter also the appellant's counsel submitted that opportunity was not given to him to produce his witnesses although he had submitted a list of witnesses whom he desired to produce. From the application dated 4th January, 1961 which is at page 108 of the file already referred to we find that this application was filed in regard to summoning witnesses to give evidence in regard to sale of land only and not anything else. As already observed in that connection the appellant absented himself on the date fixed for hearing and he did not take any steps to move the court for being given an opportunity. Therefore this contention cannot be admitted at this stage. The next objection pertains to deductions. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- has been deducted from the Jagirdar's compensation on account of Government loan. It was urged that no certificate in form No. 10 had been received from the Collector without which no deduction was permissible. We find that this objection is valid. This deduction comes under Section 22 (1) (e) of the Act and Rule 37-C. Without any such certificate the deduction is not permissible and cannot be sustained. The deduction therefore requires reconsideration. The question of maintenance allowance granted in the final award has also been challenged by the Jagirdar on the one hand and a cross objection has also been filed by Mst. Sau Kanwar, respondent No. 3. In the provisional award issued in this jagir, maintenance allowance was fixed for the following members of the family : 1. Smt. Madan Kanwar. . . . . . Rs. 3, 600. 00 2. Smt. Suva Kanwar. . . . . . Rs. 1, 800. 00 3. Sri Ranjeet Singh. . . . . . Rs. 3, 600. 00 4. Smt. Prem Kanwar. . . . . . Rs. 1, 080. 00 5. Sats. Shiv Bhanwar, Suraj Kanwar, Pushpa Kanwar, Suman Kanwar and Uma Kanwar @ Rs. 180/- each. In the final award of this jagir the Additional Jagir Commissioner revised the maintenance allowances and only sanctioned the following maintenance allowance : Smt. Suva Kanwar Rs. 35/- per month or Rs. 6300/- for 15 years. Sri Ranjeet Singh, s/o Jagirdar, Rs. 36/- per month or Rs. 6480/- for 15 years. The gujaras for other members of the family were not sanctioned. It was stated that the Jagirdar's wife and his unmarried daughter were residing with him according to the statement of Shri Ranjeet Singh, son of the Jagirdar, and that the other daughters had already been married and therefore they were not entitled to any gujara. The Additional Jagir Commissioner therefore decided to grant gujaras only to Smt. Suva Kanwar, Paswan of the deceased jagirdar and Sri Ranjeet Singh son of the jagirdar. It was added that Smt. Suva Kanwar had provisionally been given a gujara of Rs. 600/- per year and Sri Ranjeet Singh Rs. 1200- per year but keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 27 and the amount of compensation that would be payable to the jagirdar, the amount of maintenance were reduced to Rs. 35/- per month for Smt. Suva Kanwar and Rs. 36/- per month to Sri Ranjeet Singh. The Jagirdar has challenged this order on the ground that the Additional Jagir Commsi-sioner should not have stopped the maintenance allowance which had already been sanctioned to the other maintenance holders who were his relations and who were entitled to maintenance. It was also urged that Smt. Suva Kanwar had her own separate lands (Hawala) that Sri Ranjeet Singh was a major and earning his own livelihood and therefore none of them were entitled to any maintenance. On behalf of Smt. Suva Kanwat it was urged that a final order had already been passed by the Jagir Commissioner on 29th July, 1955 fixing her maintenance allowance at Rs. 50/- per month which was included in the provisional award and therefore the Additional Jagir Commissioner could not have reduced this amount as it was a final decision. Sri Ranjeet Singh was not present although he was duly summoned. As regards the objection of Smt. Suva Kanwar the fact that an order was issued on 27th January, 1955 fixing her maintenance amount at Rs. 50/- per month does not prevent the Additional Jagir Commissioner in reviewing the matter and fixing the amount of maintenance at the time of the determination of the compensation amount payable to the Jagirdar in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 27 of the Act. We find that the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner has fully kept in view the considerations mentioned in Sec. 27 which should guide him in fixing the allowance to the maintenance holders. So far as Smt. Suva Kanwar is concerned, we feel that the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner was perfectly justified in reducing the amount to Rs. 35/- per month keeping in view the net amount of compensation and rehabilitation amount payable to the jagirdar. As regards Sri Ranjeet Singh we feel that the Additional Jagir Commissioner has erred on the side of generosity. No doubt he is a person entitled to maintenance but in view of the fact that the net amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to the jagirdar has been reduced and that Sri Ranjeet Singh is a major person earning his own livelihood we consider that his maintenance should be reduced to Rs. 10/- per month or Rs. 1800/- for 15 years. As regards maintenance to the married daughters, we agree with the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner that they are not entitled to any maintenance after their marriage and their claims are, therefore, rejected. As regards the maintenance for the jagirdar's own wife and unmarried daughter the reason why the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner has disallowed any maintenance to them is not in accordance with the law. The question to be examined is whether they are entitled to any maintenance at all and if it is held that they are so entitled, suitable maintenance in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 27 of the Act should be fixed. Since we are remanding this case for redetermination on a number of other items, we leave this matter also to be decided afresh by the Jagir Commissioner in accordance with the law. We may observe here that the fact that the Thikana may be indebted and the Jagirdar may not get any compensation owing to attachment or other reasons cannot be a factor in determining the maintenance under Sec. 27. Only the consideration mentioned in Sec. 27 should govern a decision on this matter. We have thus discussed all the items which were pressed before us and we have given our observations and decision under the various heads concerned. In the result we accept this appeal, set aside the orders of the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner dated 21st Dec, 1962 and remand the case to him with the direction that he shall re-enquire into the matters which have been ordered to be re-examined and redetermine the final award and the maintenance payable to maintenance holders in the light of our observations and in accordance with the law. . ;