- (1.) THESE are tow cross appeals against the final award given by the learned Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 13. 6. 1962 in respect of the resumed jagir of Shri Bhagirath Singh. Shri Kan Singh, Government Advocate has raised the preliminary point that the final award given by the learned Jagir Commissioner should be set aside for the reason that a question of bias is involved. The present order therefore deals with this preliminary question only. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be briefly summarised. The jagir of Shri Bhagirath Singh was resumed on 1. 11. 1958. He claimed income from his jagir under 4 heads (i) rental income; (ii) grazing; (iii) non-agricultural use of land, and (iv) sale of abadi as, well as agricultural lands.
(2.) THE then Jagir Commissioner, Shri Daulat Singh, gave his award on 29. 9. 1960 wherein the rental income claimed was slashed down and the income from the other three heads was totally disallowed. THE matter came up in appeal in this Board which was heard by the Division Bench consisting of Sarva Shri Khem Chand and Gajendra Singh. By their order dated 12. 4. 61, the Division Bench accepted the appeal of Shri Bhagirath Singh and restored the cut made by the then Jagir Commissioner in the rental income claimed by Bhagirath Singh. THEy also remanded the case for further enquiry regarding the income claimed under the other three heads. Soon after, Shri Gajendra Singh was transferred from this Board and came to occupy the post of Jagir Commissioner. Accordingly, he held the further enquiry ordered by the Division Bench of the Board and gave his final award on 13. 6. 1962. In this award, he allowed income from grazing and non-agricultural use of land to the extent of Rs. 2800/- and under the head of abadi land to the extent of Rs. 665/ -. Shri Kan Singh has urged that the fact that after having sat on the Division Bench which heard the appeal against the earlier decision of the then Jagir Commissioner, Shri Gajendra Singh on his transfer from the Board to the office of Jagir Commissioner, heard and decided the case, violates the fundamental principle that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The suggestion is that since Shri Gajendra Singh, as a Member of this Board had formed certain impressions of the case in the course of the hearing of the appeal by the Division Bench of this Board, there was a distinct possibility of his having a bias in the matter. We note that when the case went back to the Jagir Commissioner on remand by the Board. No objection was taken either on behalf of the State or on behalf of Bhagirath Singh, to the case being heard by Shri Gajendra Singh We further note that this objection has not been set out in the memo of appeal submitted on behalf of the State. Nonetheless, we have also gone through the ruling relied upon by Shri Kan Singh which is A. I. R. 1959 Supreme Court 308. The Supreme Court had before them a petition by certain transport operators against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. It transpired that the objections raised by the petitioners against a scheme of nationalisation of transport were heard by the Transport Secretary, though orders were passed by the Chief Minister. Their Lordships held that the Transport Department being a party to the case, bias was involved, in that, the Secretary to the Transport Department himself had heard the objections raised by the petitioners. Their Lordships observed that the hearing given by the Secretary, Transport Department, offended the principles of natural justice. Now, this case is quite different from the one that we have to deal with at present. Shri Gajendra Singh is himself not a disputing party in this case and therefore the question of his having a bias as a party does not arise. There are certain situations in which bias is definitely involved when the same person deals with the same case in two different capacities. For instance, bias arises when a judge having decided a case is elevated to a judicial forum before which the appeal from his own decision lies. In such a situation the position would be that the judge having decided the case in a lower capacity would be sitting in judgment upon his own order in a higher capacity. Such a situation cannot be countenanced. But what we have in the present case before us is a situation in reverse. Shri Gajendra Singh along with another Member of this Board remanded the case to the Jagir Commissioner for a further enquiry on certain counts and this enquiry he conducted himself on his transfer as Jagir Commissioner. This is not a case of a person sitting in judgment upon his own decision. The Board was not satisfied with the enquiry made by the former Jagir Commissioner and therefore ordered a further enquiry which involved the taking of additional evidence. This enquiry , was conducted by Shri Gagendra Singh in terms of the order passed by the Board, to which he himself was a party. This does not mean that Shri Gajendra Singh, as a Member of the Board, had made up his mind about the matter on which a further enquiry was ordered by the Bench on which he sat. The matter was left open to be decided in the light of the facts to come out after further enquiry. In any case, it is for the Government Advocate to show that the further enquiry held by Shri Gajendra Singh as Jagir Commissioner was biased and defective, and that would be a matter for decision on merits. At the present stage, we cannot take it for granted that the mere fact that Shri Gajendra Singh conducted further enquiry involved bias, and that on this ground alone the decision given by Shri Gajendra Singh as Jagir Commissioner, should be set aside If we were to accept the position taken by Shri Kan Singh, we would also have to hold that whenever we remand a case to a lower court, we should lay down that the presiding Officer of the Court should be different from the one whose decision we have set aside. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reject the argument set-forth by Shri Kansingh, Govt. Advocate, that the decision of the Jagir Commissioner should be set aside merely on the ground that he had been associated with the appeal in the case at an earlier stage. Thus the appeals will now be listed for hearing on merits. .;