- (1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 19|52 against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan dated 25. 10. 1962 determining the compensation amount of the appellant in respect of his jagir resumed by the State. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
(2.) AT the outset, an objection was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Jagir Commissioner had dealt with the claims of Shri Hari Singh and Shri Jaisingh (two separate jagirdars) in one order under appeal, which he urged was illegal as each claim was to be determined separately. Simply because the Board of Revenue in its remand order had dealt with the case by a single order as the matters urged in two appeals were the same. , it. was not proper to have included the claims of both the jagirdars in that order. There is force in this contention as the compensation claim of each jagir is to be determined separately, the evidence will be different in each case, its appreciation will be naturally different in each case. These and the conclusion will also be different and it is, therefore, not a satisfactory procedure in such circumstances, to deal with more than one claim in one order. Two items have been challenged in the compensation award finalised by the Jagir Commissioner in respect of incomes under "forest, and Mines". The very two items were contested in the appeal which was preferred to the Board of Revenue by the appellant against the earliest order of the Jagir Commissioner dated 13. 8. 61. The Board while remanding the claim to the Jagir Commissioner under its order dated 26. 3. 1962 had referred to the history of this claim in a very long judgment covering about 11 pages. In the concluding paragraph of its order the Board observed - "to recapitulate it is first to be enquired and decided as to what is the clause of para 2 of the Second Schedule of the Act under which the two claims made by the appellants would fall and why and what are the prescribed rules for holding enquiry into their claims. The claims are to be enquired into and decided strictly in accordance with the provisions thereof. The enquiries excepting those envisaged by Rules 37 A and B should be made by the learned Jagir Commissioner himself to avoid the necessity of remanding the case again and again. The appellants have to be given full opportunity of producing their evidence in support of their claims in accordance with rules, keeping in view the observations made above, and the Government has to be allowed an opportunity of rebutting the same. After having thus enquired into the cases, the parties are to be heard by learned Jagir Commissioner on all points and a decision is to be given in accordance with law only thereafter. " It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Board in the above remand order had exhaustively commented on the evidence which was on record and had also objected to the ad hoc assessment which the learned Jagir Commissioner had previously made about the income under these two heads claimed by the appellant but that in spite of such directions contained in the remand order the learned Jagir Commissioner had still stuck to the award previously given by him on 13. 9. 1961 and confirmed it and had consequently not complied with the directions of the Board. He also urged that the assessment made was not based on any law and that the amount which was found admissible on the basis of the evidence on record should have been allowed. It was added that the appellant received notice from the learned Jagir Commissioner to appear before him but that he could not do so owing to his illness and had sent a telegram to that effect. The learned Jagir Commissioner however finalised the award without giving him an opportunity to be heard in accor-dance with the directions of the Board contained in the remand order. It was, therefore, requested that the award given by the learned Jagir Commissioner in his order dated 25. 10. 1962 be set aside and the income which was proved to have accrued on the basis of evidence on record may be allowed to him. The learned Government counsel joined hands with the learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the method of assessment made by the learned Jagir Commissioner on an ad hoc basis which was nowhere provided in the law. The procedure adopted by the learned Jagir Commissioner in thus making assessment made a novel departure from the established procedure which cannot be sustained. He therefore requested that the case be remanded once again to the learned Jagir Commissioner to give a firm decision on the basis of the evidence on record. The learned Government counsel objected to the appellate court giving a a finding on the two incomes claimed on the basis of the evidence on record as this was properly to be done by the lower court on a proper appreciation of the evidence as any such decision by the appellate court would deprive the State of further remedy by way of appeal. We have carefully considered the judgment of the learned Jagir Commissioner under appeal. It is regrettable that the learned Jagir Commissioner instead of complying with the clear directions of the Board in the remand order dated 26. 8. 62 observed that "it was open for the Revenue Board either to accept the account books of the claimants and assess the income as claimed by them or they could have acted upon the reports of the departments concerned and allowed the income on that basis. It was further open to the Revenue Board to disallow the ad hoc income assessed by me. In view of the present circumstances of the case where no further evidence has been produced I have no alternative but to confirm my award given by me in these two cases on 13. 9. 1961" The learned Jagir Commissioner has, it is regretted, thus clearly gone against the directions of the Board. It was immaterial whether the appellant had produced any further, evidence or had appeared to make Ins representation. What was required to be done by the Jagir Commissioner was to have examined the evidence on record and come to a finding in accordance with the law based on such record. The procedure adopted by the learned Jagir Commissioner in confirming his previous order merely because no fresh evidence was produced by the appellant coupled with his observations quoted above, showed with all respect to him, that he was not inclined to face the implications of a proper enquiry which should have been obvious to him particularly had he followed the directions contained in the Board's order dated 26. 3. 1962. We are constrained to observe that he has in a way avoided to comply with the directions of the Board and adhered to his own method of making ad hoc assessment which had already been disapproved of as being illegal and having any warranty under the law. By this action he has unfortunately prolonged this case after its chequered history. It may be observed that the claim was first finalised by the learned Jagir Commissioner on 6. 2. 1960 and the resumption of Jagir had taken place on 15. 9. 1957 and the compensation is still undetermined. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to remand this case once again to the learned Jagir Commissioner. We would express the hope that at least on this occasion he will, keeping in view the provisions of the law and particularly the directions of the Board contained in its order of 26. 3. 62, redetermine the income under the heads "forests" and "mining" on the basis of the evidence already on record and no fresh evidence will be adducible. We accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the orders of the learned Jagir Commissioner dated 25. 10. 1962 and remand the case to him to redetermine the compensation claim of the Jagirdar in accordance with the law in the light of the observations made above. ;