Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Chhotu and 17 others under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE applicant are tenants of a khalsa village in which settlement operations were going on, and have now been completed. THEy have come up to this Court and their complaint is that rent rates, which had been fixed, are very high, and this court should quash them on the ground that the provisions of law with respect to settlement operations have not been complied with. THEy have also attacked realisation of patwar and malbacesses from them. THEy have further alleged that a batta of one anna per rupee is charged from them when they go to pay the rent mentioned in the parchas on account of difference between Jharshai coin and Indian coin, and that this is an illegal eviction because the settlement was made in 1953 according to standard Indian coin. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State. We do not think it necessary to set out the application or the reply in detail. The points raised and the reply thereto will be considered by us one by one, and that will show what the case of the parties is. The first point, that is urged on behalf of the applicants, is that a notification under sec. 78 of the Jaipur State grants Land Tenures Act (No 1) of 1947 was not issued, and therefore all settlement operations, which took place without such notification, are illegal. We may point out, however, that the village, with respect to which the present application has been made, is not governed by the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act (No. 1) of 1947, but by the Jaipur Land Revenue Act (No. XXXVI)of 1947,because it is a khalsa village. Under the Jaipur Land Revenue Act, however, the Government has to make a notification under sec. 42 in the Jaipur Gazette, if a settlement or re-settlement of rents has to be made in any local area. We find that such a notification was made on the 20th of January, 1949, by which it was notified the survey and settlement operations were to be carried out in ail khasla and non-khasla areas without any exeception. This notification was for the entire Jaipur State and included all the area in that State. There is no force, therefore, in this contention of the applicant. The second point, that has been urged, is that no order was passed by the Board, as required by sec. 79 of the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act, which applies, by virtue of sec 42 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act, to settlement operations in khalsa villages, and therefore the settlement officer had no jurisdiction to make the settlement. We find that sec. 79 gives power to the Board to transfer the maintenance)f maps and field-books and the preparation of annual registers to the Settlement Officer during the currency to the settlement. But this is a discretionary power and only means that for the period of settlement the word of the ordinary establishment under the Nazim may be done by the Settlement Officer if the Board so thinks fit. But if the Board does not so think fit, the ordinary work of maintaining the maps and field-books and of preparing the annual registers would continue to be done by the Nazim. This, however, would not affect the powers of the Settlement Officer to carry out the settlement. The reply of the State in this connection is that the duty of maintaining the maps and field-books, and of preparing the annual registers continued to be performed by the Nazim. We, therefore, see no force in this contention either The third objection on behalf of the applicants is that rent rates were not published as required by see. 80 (2) (e) of the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act which also applies in view of sec. ,42 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act. The reply of the State to this is that the rent rates were announced in the village as required and objections were invited within 30 days. Our attention has not been drawn by the applicant to any particular mode in which the rent rates are to be published by any rule framed by the Government. In these circumstances, the publication of the rent-rates by announcement in the village would, in our opinion, be sufficient. The objection, therefore, that the rent-rates were not published and objections were not invited as required by sec. 80 also fails. The next point, that is urged, is that sec. 84 and 85 of the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act were not complied with and the tenants were not permitted to object to the sanctioned rates under those sections, and therefore the rents sanctioned under sec. 85 could not be maintained. These two sections also apply to khalsa villages by virtue of sec. 42 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act, But we are of opinion that there is some misapprehension in the mind of the applicants as to the scope of sec. 84 and 85 of the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act. Sec. 84 lays down that after the rent rates have been sanctioned by the Government, and these are called sanctioned rates in this section, the Settlement Officer shall determine rents of individual holdings, whether by way of abatement or commutation, and cause slips to be prepared showing for each holding its tenure, the soii-class,the sanctioned rate, and the rent as determined by him. The slips are then distributed to the tenants, and objections are invited by the Settlement Officer. Under sec. 85, the objections are considered by the Settlement Officer and after hearing the objections he fixes the rent of the holding. The contention of the applicants is that they are entitled to object to the sanctioned rates also under sec. 81 and 85, and that they did so object, but the Settlement Officer refused to hear their objections to the sanctioned rates. We are of opinion that what sec. 84 and 85 contemplate is an objection to the rent fixed in individual cases, and not objection to the sanctioned rates. The objection to the rent rates are to be made under sac. 80 (2) (e) and once they have been sanctioned by the Government under sec. 80 (4), no further objection can be made to the rates. All that the tenant can object under secs. 84 is that his soil is not of that class as mentioned in the parcha or that the rate, which is shown against that particular class of soil, is an incorrect in the sense that it is meant for some other class of soil or that calculations are not correct and so on. The objections in this case by the tenants under sec. 84 and 85 were all against the sanctioned rate, namely that the rates sanctioned by the Goverment were excessive. These objections could not be entertained at that stage, and were rightly turned down by the Settlement Officer. Another point in this very connection is that slips were distributed only once, while sec. 84 and 85 envisage distribution of slips twice, once before the objections, and second time after the objections have been decided. The reply to that is that slips were distributed a second time in those cases where there was any variation on the basis of the objections received. Where there was no variation, slips were not distributed a second time as they were unnecessary. This is a mere matter of detail, and we do not think that there was any illegality in this procedure. The next point, that is urged, is that the rent rates for this village were in some respects different from the rent rates in other villages near about. It is, however, clear from sec. 83 of the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act, which also applies to settlement of khalsa villages, that it is possible for rates to vary within the same circle. There is reason for such variation, and in these circumstances it is idle to say that this variation is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. Another point that is urged is that in addition to the rent the parchas also disclosed two cesses which, according to the applicants, are illegal. These cesses are pat-war and malba. Patwar cess is for the maintenance of the Patwaris. The case of the applicants is that sec. 69 of the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act such a cess cannot be charged from the tenants. This contention is incorrect because sec. 69 does not apply to khalsa villages. But the Jaipur Land Revenue Act, which applies to khalsa villages, has nowhere prescribed that the expenses of Patwari establishment will be realised from the tenants. Sec. 35 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act, which corresponds to sec. 69 (1) of the Jaipur State-grants Lands Tenures Act, mention Pat-wars' establishment. But there is no provision corresponding to sec. 69 (3) in the Jaipur Land Revenue Act. We are of opinion that it is not open to the Government to realise patwar cess for the maintenance of Patwaris on the ground that sec. 88 of the Jaipur State-grants Land Tenures Act is made applicable to khalsa village by sec. 42 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act. In the former Act, there are two provisions for cesses, namely sec. 55 and 88 but there is a separate provision namely, sec. 69 (3), for expenses of Patwaris' establishment. Secs. 55 and 88 have nothing to do with charges on account of 'patwaris' establish-ment, and their application to khalsa villages would not entitle the State to charge the tenants for Patwaries' establishment, as is permitted under sec. 69 (3 ). As for malba, we are given to understand that it is some kind of cess for the common expenses of the village, and for the payment of the salary of the Patel who collects the rent for the State. We are of opinion that this can hardly be justified as a cess under see. 88 as already mentioned. Further,it has not been shown to us that this cess has been sanctioned under any special or general order of the Government, and is levied in accordance with village custom. These two cesses must therefore go and as they are severable the whole settlement will not become invalid. The last point that is urged is that a batta at the rate of one anna per rupee is charged when the applicants go to pay the land revenue. We have not been able to understand why this batta is charged. In the reply, nothing is said about this. We cannot believe that the Settlement Officer settling rents in 1951 was doing so in the former Jaipur coin known as Jharshai, which was equivalent to 17 annas of the Indian rupee. We must take it that he was fixing the rent in Indian rupee, and if any execution of this kind is being made, it must stop at once for the tenant is only liable to pay the amount mentioned in the parchas in Indian rupees. We, therefore, partly allow the applications, and issue a direction to the State Government not to realise patwar and malba from the applicants. The rest of the appli-cation fails. In View of the circumstances, we order parties to bear their own costs. . ;