Tyagi, J - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by an intermediary under sec. 65 (3) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the estate of Shri Bajranabh Sen, the ex-Istimardar of Khawas was resumed under the provisions of the Act and a notification under sec. 4 was issued by the then Government of Ajmer State on 1st of August, 1955. On the issue of the said notification, the estate of the appellant vested in the State Government and thereafter proceedings for determination of the compensation under the provision of the Act and the rules made thereunder were taken by the Compensation Officer. THE appellant filed under Article 32 of the Constitution a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act and the consequent vesting of the estate in the Government, and, therefore, he did not think it necessary to take part in the proceedings started by the Compensation Officer to determine the compensation of his estate. It was under this impression that he did not file any statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act within the prescribed period of two months from the date of the notification. After the expiry of the period of two months, the Compensation Officer issued a notice under sec. 13 of the Act to the appellant, but the appellant avoided the service of the notice on him. THE Compensation Officer, therefore, after taking necessary data from the record-of-rights and other relevant papers submitted his report to the Compensation Commissioner under sec. 13 (1) of the Act. On receipt of the report from the Compensation Officer, the Compensation Commissioner served the appellant intermediary with a notice under sub-section (3) of sec. 13 of the Act duly accompanied by a copy of the report of the Compensation Officer to afford him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. It was after the receipt of this notice under sub-section (3) of sec. 13 of the Act that the intermediary preferred to appear before the Compensation Commissioner and filed his objections and also submitted a statement of claim in the prescribed form A. I. 7. THE Compensation Commissioner after the receipt of the objections and the statement of the claim filed by the appellant finalised the compensation amount and observed that rule 21 was of mandatory nature, and as intermediary had failed to file his claim within the prescribed period, he had lost his rights to submit the statement of his claim at that late stage. THE learned Compensation Commissioner also expressed his opinion that in case the intermediary failed to file the statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act he could refer only to the entries of the record-of rights and the annual registers, and as of right he could not claim to adduce any other evidence to prove his objections. In view of this opinion, the learned Compensation Commissioner did not like to go into the details supplied by the intermediary in his statement of claim and the report submitted by the Compensation Officer was, therefore, accepted by him without any modification. It is against this order of the Compensation Commissioner dated 11th May, 1956, that the intermediary has preferred to come in appeal before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Compensation Commissioner has erred in interpreting rule 21 which itself provides for a necessary enquiry to be made by the Compensation Officer under that rule and the rules following it, to determine the correct amount of compensation. He further contended that failure to submit the statement of claim within the prescribed period of two months cannot be used by the Compensation Officer or the Commissioner to penalise the intermediary. According to him, it is the duty of the Compensation Commissioner to determine the just and reasonable amount of compensation which the intermediary is entitled to receive under the Act. The learned Deputy Government Advocate,in reply, strenuously urged that the period prescribed by the statute for filing the statement of claim must be respected by the intermediary, and if he fails to do so, then in that case he would forfeit all his rights to adduce any evidence other than the entries in the record of rights and the annual registers prepared by the revenue department. He further submitted that if strict view of the matter is not taken by the courts in interpreting rule 21 of the Rules then the intermediaries would disturb the determination of compensation at any stage by filing the statement of their claim under sec. 12, which would delay the determination of the compensation amount under the Act. Arguments of both the learned counsel raise an important question for our decision, and it is : Whether the intermediary loses his right to file the statement of his claim under sec. 12 of the Act and to adduce evidence in support of his objection that he may subsequently file pursuant to the notice under sec. 13 (3) if he failed to submit the statement of claim within two months from the date of the notification as prescribed by sec. 12 of the Act ? In order to decide this question, we shall have -t0| see the scheme of the Act and the Rules which the legislature has laid down for determination and payment of compensation to the intermediary. Sec. 10 of the Act provides about the liability for the payment of compensation by j the State Government. According to this section, every intermediary, whose right, title or interest in any estate is acquired under the Act, shall be paid by the State Government such compensation as may be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the Schedule attached to the Act. It further lays down that such compensation shall become due from the date of the vesting of the estate in the State Government, and it will carry simple interest at the rate of 2-1/2 per cent per annum from that date up to the date of payment. Sec. 12 requires the submission of the statement of claim by the intermediary within two months from the date of vesting supplying information regarding nature of the grant, income from various sources to the intermediary,and other relevant particulars specified therein to enable the Compensation Officers to determine the grant of compensation as well as the maintenance allowance to the Guzaredars. Sec. 13 lays down the procedure for the Compensation Commissioner to follow to finally determine the compensation claim of the intermediary. It will be worthwhile to quote in extenso the provisions of sec. 13 as on the interpretation of this section answer to the question raised by the parties would depend. Sec. 13 reads as follows: - "13 Determination of compensation and dues and other deductions.- (1) On receipt of a statement of claim under sec. !2, or if no such statement is received within the period specified in that section, on the expiry of that period, the Compensation Officer shall, after such inquiry as he deems necessary make a report to the Compensation Commissioner, and the Compensation Commissioner shall after making such further inquiry as he deems necessary, determine - (a) the total amount of compensation payable to an intermediary in accordance with a the principles specified in the Schedules; (b) the amount recoverable from the intermediary under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of sec. 6; and (c) the amount payable from the compensation to a Guzaredar under sec. 11 (2) A copy of the order made under subsection (1) shall be served upon the intermediary and the Collector. (3) The Compensation Commissioner shall after giving the Collector, the interme diary and any other interested person reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, make final order. " Chapter III of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prescribes an elaborate procedure to be followed by the Compensation Officer and the Compensation Commissioner to determine the amount of compensation. These rules also lay down the procedure for an eventuality when the intermediary fails to submit his statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act. Rule 21 is a relevant rule which reads as follows : "21. Incase no statement has been filed by the intermediary within the period specified under sec. 12 of the Act, or the statement filed does not contain all the required particulars, the Compensation Officer shall determine the required particulars on the basis of the Record of Rights prepared during the last Record Operations and Annual Registers and other documents after making such necessary enquiry as he may deem fit and after giving an opportunity to the intermediary of being heard. " From the perusal of rule 19 also, we find that a duty has been cast on the Compensation Officer to prepare a statement in the prescribed A. I. Forms 8, 9 and 10 about the income of the intermediary from the agricultural lands and he is required by rule 20 to check such entries with the statement of claim submitted by the intermediary. There are two other rules, namely 52 and 26, which throw a light on the question as to how income accruing to the intermediary from sayar and forest has to be determined by the Compensation Officer. The procedure laid down in these two rules has got to be followed by the Compensation Officer and the Compensation Commissioner irrespective, of the fact whether the intermediary has or has not submitted the statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act. Sec. 10 casts an obligation on the State Government to pay the compensation to the intermediary. It does not, however, speak that this liability will come to an end if the intermediary fails to associate himself with the enquiry for determining the compensation amount by filing a statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act. There is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules which gives the power to the Compensation Commissioner or the State Government to penalise the intermediary if he fails to submit the statement of claim as required by the provisions of sec. 12. Learned Deputy Government Advocate laid too much of stress on the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of sec. 12 which require the intermediary to file the list of the document on which he relies in support of the statement of claim and that the claim should be signed and verified in the manner provided for signing and verification of claims in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The argument that the learned Deputy Government Advocate based on this provision of sec. 12 is that the statement of claim which under the mandate of the law is required to be submitted by the intermediary shall form the basis for the determination of compensation and if the basis is absent then it must be taken as if there is no plaint on the record which would afford the opportunity to the officer to investigate the claim of the intermediary to finally settle the compensation amount. We regret, we cannot accept this argument of the learned Deputy Government Advocate in view of other specific provisions that have been laid down by the legislature which require the Compensation Commissioner to determine the just compensation amount irrespective of the fact whether the intermediary associates or not with the enquiry. Even if the intermediary fails to submit his claim the law requires the Compensation Commissioner to give a notice under sub-section (3) of sec. 13 of the Act to the intermediary after receiving the report from the Compensation Officer, and before he proceeds to finally determine the compensation. It may be mentioned that the notice under sub-section (3) of sec. 13 of the Act is not dependent, as is evident from the language of this sub-section, on the filing of the claim by the intermediary under sec. 12. The law makes it obligatory for the Compensation Commissioner to serve the intermediary with a notice along with the copy of the report of the Compensation Officer, and afford him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter when he proceeds to make a final order. Rule 21, no doubt, specifically provides that in the absence of any claim of compensation or when the claim filed by the intermediary is deficient and does not provide information on matters which are required to be furnished by the intermediary under sec. 12, the Compensation Officer is to proceed to determine the compensation. But both rules 25 and 26 lay down an elaborate procedure to be followed to determine income from sayar and from forest area. Under these rules, the intermediary has a right to file a written statement and to adduce such evidence as he may think necessary to prove his claim under these two heads. In view of these provisions, it is a difficult to accept that if the intermediary fails at a stage when he is required under the provisions of the law to file a statement of claim within two months, then at subsequent stages he cannot be permitted to prove all those objections, which, under the provisions of these rules, he can make as and when the Compensation Officer or Compensation Commissioner launches and enquiry to find out the amount of compensation to be paid to the intermediary. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the intermediary can join the enquiry at a subsequent stage also and his failure to file a statement of claim under sec. 12 would not debar him from doing so. The contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the time prescribed under sec. 12 of the Act would become meaningless if the intermediary is permitted to adduce evidence at any subsequent stage does not fit in with the scheme of things as laid down by the statute and the rules made thereunder. In our opinion, this period has been prescribed with a view to expedite the initiation of the enquiry by the Compensation Officer and enable him to determine ex parte the amount of compensation which under the law is prime obligation of the State in particular manner. This argument of the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the claim of compensation to be filed by the intermediary is like the plaint on which the entire enquiry is to be based also does not find any support from the provi-sions of the Act and the Rules. The provision for signing of the claim by the inter-mediary and verifying the same like a plaint has been incorporated in sec. 12 to pin down the intermediary to a particular position so that he may not change his position every now and then to convert the enquiry into a roving enquiry. From these provisions, it cannot be inferred that the absence of the statement of claim would debar the intermediary to associate with the enquiry at subsequent stages. If the legislature wanted to penalise the intermediary for not fulfilling his part of the duty under sec. 12 then a penal clause would have been inserted in the statute itself. In the absence of any such penal provision, we regret, we cannot accept the contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate and thereby insert a penal clause in the statute. Such statutes which throw an obligation on the State for making payment of compensation to the person whose properties have been acquired thereunder must be interpreted in a manner which may not be prejudicial to the person who is deprived of his property under the Act. No doubt, an obligation is cast by the provision of sec. 12 on the intermediary to supply information by filing the statement of claim under sec. 12 but this obligation is not of such a nature that non-compliance thereof would entail the deprivation of the just and proper compensation otherwise it would be tantamount to a forfeiture of his property. The obligation of the State Government under sec. 10 of the Act would not also evaporate because of the failure on the part of intermediary to comply with the requirements of sec. 12 of the Act. It may mentioned that the intermediary, as of right, cannot insist upon bringing on record his statement of claim after the period prescribed in sec. 12 has expired, but his right to prove his claim under rules 24,25 and 26 would not be affected by his failure to comply with the requirements of sec. 12. In the instant case, we find that the larned Compensation Commissioner has not at all taken into account any income accruing to the intermediary from Sayar and from forest area whereas the claim filed by him on the 17th of March 1956, shows a considerable income from these two sources. Looking to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it was the duty of the learned Compensation Commissioner to find out the income accruing to the intermediary from these sources if somehow it came to his knowledge that such an income was being received by him in previous years. He cannot refuse to enquire about the income from these sources simply because the intermediary did not file within the prescribed period the statement of his claim. The attitude shown by the learned Compensation Commissioner obviously violates the spirit and the mandate of the law. The learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Dilawar Kanwar V. Collector, Ajmer (l), wherein it has been observed : "the policy of the land reforms legislation being to secure the twin objects : (a) of eliminating intermediaries, (b) of rehabilitating them in a proper manner and to enable them by providing all reasonable facilities to adapt to the changed conditions, the authorities concerned with the determination of compensation should not emphasise more the enforcement of discipline and the imposition of penalties, but should sympathetically conduct these proceedings and as far as possible determine controversies on merits and should grant all reasonable facilities for this purpose. " We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observation of the learned judge, and we feel that the learned Compensation Commissioner unduly stressed the point of the failure of the intermediary in filing the statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act. This attitude of the learned Compensation Commissioner has resulted in gross injustice to the intermediary. The next question raised by the appellant is that the income determined by the compensation Commissioner in respect of the agricultural land is not correct as he calculated it on the basis of rent rates sanctioned by the Ajmer State Government on 24th July, 1955. According to his submission, though the rent rates were sanctioned by the State Government on 24th July 1955, they could be enforced from the next agricultural year, and, therefore, such rent rates could not be used to form the basis for calculating the agricultural income of the appellant for the purposes of determining the compensation. We feel that there is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as in para 3 of the Schedule attached to the Act, we find a provision in the following terms : "3. (a) (ii) where the rent is payable in kind or partly in cash and partly in kind, the valuation at the sanctioned appropriate village rates fixed by the Rent-Rate Officer immediately preceding the date of vesting;" As the rent in this case is payable partly in cash and partly in kind, the aforesaid provision of the Schedule is attracted to assess the income of the rent and it can, therefore, be calculated on the basis of the rates of the village fixed by the Rent-Rate Officer immediately preceding the date of vesting. It may be noted that rent rates of the village were fixed and sanctioned by the State Government on 24th July, 1955, whereas the vesting of the estate took place on 1st August, 1955 by virtue of notification under section 4 ; therefore, rent rates though published in the Gazette later on but sanctioned before the vesting of the estate, would be available for calculating the income of the intermediary from rent. We are of opinion that no error has been committed by the Compensation Commissioner in calculating the income of the rent on the basis of the rent rates sanctioned by the Government on 24th July, 1955. In view of the matter discussed above, we accept the appeal of the intermediary and set aside the order of the learned Compensation Commissioner dated 11th May, 1956, and direct that the amount of* compensation be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the law and the rules made thereunder, and if the intermediary furnishes any information to enable the Compensation Officer or the Compensation Commissioner to calculate the correct amount of compensation, it should not be discarded only because the intermediary has failed to submit the statement of claim for compensation under section 12 within two months from the date of the vesting of his estate. We pass no order as to costs. .;