- (1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagirs Resumption Act, 1952 against the orders of the Deputy Collector Jagirs, Alwar dated 30. 4. 1962.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the muafi, in question, was first resumed on 1. 7. 1958 and then released and finally resumed on 1. 3. 1960; but the learned Deputy Collector in computing the income of compensation has treated 1. 7. 1958 as the basic year instead of the agricultural year in which the date of resumption falls viz. Smt. 2016 (1959-60) and that consequently claim finalised by the Deputy Collector was against the provision of the Act and required to be redetermined. The learned Government counsel opposed this claim of the appellants on the ground that although the muafi was actually resumed in the month of March, 1960 the possession of the muafi granted was not restored to the muafidar after 1. 7. 1958 and consequently for all purposes, the muafi should be treated as having been resumed from 1. 7. 1958. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides. The reasoning given by the learned Deputy Collector in computing the basic year at Smt. 2014 was that the muafi was taken possession of by the Government on 1. 7. 1958. This is not a correct exposition of law. When the muafi was first resumed on 1. 7. 1958 and then released and finally resumed only on 1. 3. 1960, the compensation claim has to be determined on the basis of the resumption on 1. 3. 1960 and not on 1. 7. 1958. The argument of the learned Government counsel which supported the view of the learned Deputy Collector cannot be sustained since the Act specifically lays down that the expression "basic year" means the agricultural year in which the date of resumption falls in respect of jagirs resumed after the 20th day of August, 1959. This, therefore, does not allow for any other interpretation except that the basic year should be treated on the basis of the resumption on 1. 3. 1960. The argument that the muafi continued to remain in the possession of the Government does not alter the position in the eye of the law. In fact during the period when the muafi after its first resumption for any reason before it was finally resumed, the muafidar is entitled to the income and the resumption should be considered to have taken place only on 1. 3. 1960 and the compensation should be determined on the basis of such resumption. No other point was pressed in the appeal during the hearing though in the appeal memorandum the question of fixing of rental income has been mentioned but since the learned counsel for the appellants did not argue the issue as that is related to the basic year. We do not consider it necessary to pass any orders thereon. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the order of the learned Deputy Collector dated 30. 4. 1962 is set aside and the case is remanded to him for fresh examination of the compensation amount of the maufidar in the light of the above observations. .;