- (1.) THESE four connected appeals have been referred to this larger Bench, all involving one common point of law under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952 ). This reference has come from two different Division Benches. The point of law which has been referred to us for our decision is whether after the Jagir is resumed under section 22 of the Jagirs Act the inter se disputes relating to the properties saved from resumption under sec. 23 of the Jagirs Act between the Jagirdar and other persons are to be disposed of by the Jagir Commissioner under sec. 23 of the aforesaid Act or they are to be decided by a Civil Court. The main reference to this larger bench has been made by the Division Bench consisting of Shri M. U. Menon, the Chairman and Shri R. N. Madhok, Member. In making this reference Shri Madhok has stated that inter se disputes under sec. 23 of the Jagirs Act do not fall within the purview of the decision of the Jagir Commissioner. They are in the nature of Civil disputes and as such should be disposed of by competent Civil Courts. He further pointed out that he was not in agreement with the ruling given by the Division Bench of this Board in the case of Thakur Dan Singh of Malsesar Vs. Maji Govind Kanwar as reported in the R. L. W. 1962 at p. 87, wherein the Board has held that the Jagir Commissioner alone has to decide disputes inter se between the parties if any arising when dealing with a list of private property under sec. 23 sub-sec. (1) of the Jagirs Act, 1952.
(2.) IN view of this difference of opinion between the two Division Benches, we are called upon to adjudicate whether the inter se disputes between the Jagirdar and any other person relating to the private properties as mentioned in sec. 23 (1) of the Jagir Act are to be decided by the Jagir Commissioner or by the Civil Court. Shri P. D. Kudal appearing on behalf of the State frankly conceded that in view of the decision given by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan as reported in R. L. W. 1962 at p. 201, the controversy has been set at rest by holding that the inter se disputes are not to be settled under an enquiry under sec. 23 of the Jagirs Act by the Jagir Commissioner between the Jagirdar and any other person. Shri Agrawal, Shri Dhonkal Singh and Shri N. S. Chordia appearing on behalf of the private persons and Jagirdars also frankly admitted that disputes relating of the private property inter se the Jagirdar or any other person are not to be decided by the Jagir Commissioner. For them the only proper forum is the Civil Court. Therefore, the only ruling which holds the view that the Jagir Commissioner alone has the jurisdiction and power to decide inter se disputes is that which is reported in R. L. W. 1962 p. 87 of Thakur Dan Singh Malsesar Vs. Maji Sahiba Govind Kanwar and six others. We have carefully gone into the decision of the Division Bench of this Board referred to above wherein the Additional Jagir Commissioner has refused to adjudicate between the rival claims of the private parties relating to the property mentioned in sec. 23 of the resumed jagir in the absence of any Government interest therein. The two learned Members of the Board after examining the provisions of sec. 23 sub-sec. (2) came to the conclusion that when a question arises whether the property is of the nature referred to in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 23 it has to be referred to the Jagir Commissioner who after holding the prescribed enquiry may make such order as he deem fit. From this provision of law the learned Members constituting the Bench concluded that the Jagir Commissioner alone has to decide all disputes with regard to the private property of the Jagirdar and other persons if they so arise during the course of the enquiry. They therefore thought that the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner was misconceived and quashed it. The question, therefore before us is whether the view taken by the above Division Bench is the correct law or not. As against this view there is a clear finding of the High Court as reported in R. L. W. 1962 page 201 in the case of Mahipalsingh Versus the State of Rajasthan that such disputes are not to be decided by the Jagir Commissioner. Shri Sarjoo Prosad Chief Justice in delivering the above judgment observed as follows: - "it is true that it is not part of the duty of the Jagir Commissioner to decide the claim of the parties inter se. " The point for the decision before their Lordships in that case was whether the State Government can be stopped from filing objections against the private property of a resumed jagir or not, and the decision given was that the State could not be stopped from filing an objection relating to a private property of a Jagirdar because of its failing to object earlier. In this case the opinion expressed by their Lordships was relating to the fact that after the death of the principal Jagirdar, his heirs made rival claims to the properties of the deceased and their Lordships decided that such disputes inter se between the Jagirdar and their heirs cannot be settled by the Jagir Commissioner under the Jagirs Act. The bare perusal of the Jagirs Act 1962 would clearly show that when a Jagir is resumed by the State Government under a notification issued under section 21 of the Jagirs Act various consequences as enumerated in Section 22 of the aforesaid Act flow from such an Act of the State. It clearly lays down that right. , title and interest of the Jagirdar and every other person claiming through him in his Jagir lands including various properties enumerated in Section 22 sub-section 1 (a) vest in the State Government free from all incumbrances, i. e. Jagir land including forest, trees, fisheries etc. stand resumed to the Government free from all incumbrances. Section 23 of the Jagirs Act 1952 saves all that property from vesting in the State on the resumption of a jagir which is mentioned in that Section. That lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the last precedent section i. e. section 22, all khudkasht lands, open enclosures, private buildings, groves, private tanks, wells, tanks ects. as mentioned in the above section shall continue to belong to or be held by such Jagirdar or other persons. Sub-section 2 of section 23 of the Jagirs Act further provides as follows: - "if any question arises whether any property is of the nature referred to in sub-sec. (1) it shall be referred to the Jagir Commissioner, who may after holding the prescribed enquiry, make such order thereon as he deems fit. " The only decision that the Jagir Commissioner is competant to take under sub-section (2) of sec. 23 is with regard to the nature of the property. He has only to adjudicate whether the property which is not going to vest in the State under section 22 of the Jagirs Act belonging to a Jagirdar which is enumerated in sec. 23 of the Same Act. This decision with regard to the nature of the property is to be given by the Jagir Commissioner after he has held the prescribed enquiry and a reference has been made to him. The mode of enquiry has been prescribed from rule 22 to rule 28 of the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules, 1954. But as the Jagirdar has to submit a list of the properties which he claims as his private and personal under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 23 of the Act to the Officer taking over such charge of the Jagir. If the Officer taking over charge of the properties feels that any item of the property included by the Jagirdar in the list is not of the nature provided under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 23 of the Act, he shall record reasons for such opinion and refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner. The Officer taking over charge has also another duty to perform ; he has to publish the list given by the Jagirdar on the notice-board of the Tehsil and inform the Municipal Board and the village Panchayat and invite objections from the public at large within a specified time. These objections when received are to be forwarded to the Jagir Commissioner with his opinion. The Jagir Commissioner on receipt of such reference suo moto may institute an enquiry under rule 23 of the Act after giving due notice to all the parties including the Collector and the Revenue Secretary under rule 24. The State is represented in such enquiry through the Collector and his nominee under rule 26 and the Jagirdar also has the option to appear in such enquiry under rule 27. The rule 26 further gives the latitude to the inhabitants of the locality to appear jointly in such enquiry if they are in any manner interested therein, but the number need not exceed three at such enquiry. This enquiry under rule 28 is to be held in a manner provided for the trial of a suit by the Revenue Court. The Jagir Commissioner or the Officer holding the enquiry then allows opportunity to the State and the inhabitants of the locality to contest the claim of the Jagirdar and at the same time allows the opportunity to the Jagirdar to prove or disprove the respective contentions of the other persons. From the provisions of these rules and the scheme of the Act it appears clearly that the enquiry relating to the nature of the property mentioned in sec, 23 is confined to the fact whether the property shall vest in the State or shall continue to belong to the Jagirdar or any other person. There is nothing in the above provisions of the Act and the rules to come to the view that in deciding the nature of the properties likely to vest in the State or remain with the Jagirdar under sec. 23 the inter se disputes between the Jagirdar and other persons relating to its ownership or possession are also to be disposed of by the Jagir Commissioner. The purpose of the Jagirs Act is only that on resumption of a Jagir all properties of the Jagirdar situated in his Jagir land shall stand resumed to the State Government except those enumerated in sec. 23 sub-sec. (1 ). It is with the kinds of the properties that are not to be taken over by the State Government on the resumption of the Jagir that the Jagir Commissioner is called upon to decide any question that arises under sub-sec. 2 of sec. 23 of the Act. Incidenally the Government Advocate also contended while conceding the point of law that inter se disputes between the private persons are not to be disposed of by the Jagir Commissioner, that where no list of private property is filed by a Jagirdar then all properties of the nature mentioned in sec. 23 of the Jagirs Act should stand resumed and vest in the State Government. He vehemently argued that filing of a list of private property under rule 22 of the Jagir Rules is mandatory and if the Jagirdar does not file such list then all such properties as mentioned in sec. 23 would stand vested in the State Government on the date of the resumption of the Jagir. This contention at the Government Advocate has been amply repelled by Shri Agrawal by saying that the claim of the Government Advocate that if no list is filed of his private properties then on the date of resumption of such properties enumerated in sec. 23 sub-sec. 1 of the Act would vest in the State would lead to an untenable position. The legislature never contemplated such drastic consequences of not filing the list of the private properties as provided in the rules. The rule cannot make the Act subservient to it. Sec. 23 (1) of the Act, clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the last precedent section all properties i. e. private lands buildings, wells, house sites and enclosures etc. as mentioned in that section shall continue to belong to or be held by such jagirdar or other persons. In our view the bare perusal of the wordings of Sec. 23 sub-sec. (1) would make it clear that the legislature clearly intended that the nature of the properties referred to in sec. 23 (1) of the Jagirs Act were never intended to be resumed by the State Government on the resumption of the Jagir by using the word that such properties notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 22 of the Act shall continue to belong to or be held by such Jagirdar or other persons. The rules only provide a procedure as to how such property has to be isolated and identified from that property which is to vest in the State Government on the resumption of the Jagir. For the purpose of speedily isolating the private properties the Jagirdar is called upon to furnish a list of such properties at the time of resumption to the Officer taking over the charge of his jagir lands, and if there is a dispute whether a property is of a resumable nature or not the Jagir Commissioner after inviting claims and giving opportunities to the parties has to determine whether such property is of the resumable category or not. But where the nature of the property is to obvious such as the private building or a temple or a well or an open enclosure, grove lands, etc. it stands to reason that such property cannot be held resumed by the State even though the Jagirdar has failed to file a list of such property in time. The filing of a list is purely a ministerial act to help the State authorities in the speedy resumption of the Jagir, but it does not mean that if the list is not filed the property of the nature described in sec. 23 (1) of the Jagirs Act would also stand resumed to the State. We, therefore, answer this reference of the Division Bench by holding that the inter se disputes between the Jagirdar and other persons are not to be decided by the Jagir Commissioner with regard to his private properties and such matters should be left for the decision of the competent Civil Courts for decision. We, therefore, hold that if no list of private properties is filed by a Jagirdar at the time of resumption of his Jagir then the properties obviously of the nature referred to in Sec. 23 (1) of the Jagirs Act do no vest in the State on the resumption of the Jagir. They shall continue to belong to and held by the Jagirdar or other persons as provided in the Act. . ;