- (1.) THIS State appeal is directed against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur, dated the 23rd April, 1963 in claim No. (27) G. C/pp against the respondent Bhagwatsingh Ex-Jagirdar of Indergarh, District Kota in matters connected with the declaration of his personal property on the resumption of his jagir.
(2.) THE Government Advocate has challenged that the three properties being wrongly declared as the personal property of the respondent namely, the houses located in the City Wall on both sides of the gate, the Shiv Sagar Tank and the Dharmshala. THE Government Advocate's contention was that all these properties are in possession of the Municipality and they have incurred expenses from time to time on the repairs and upkeep of those buildings and therefore these properties could not be declared as the personal property of the Jagirdar. The respondent did not appear and ex parte proceedings were taken against him. As regards the houses located in the City wall on both sides of the gate there is no force in the contention of the Government Advocate. It has been admitted before the Jagir Commissioner that the rooms in the City wall were constructed at the expenses of the Ex-Jagirdar and their officers lived in these houses. It is not understood under what circumstances the Municipal Board occupied these houses and incurred expenditure in the upkeep of these houses. The mere fact that the houses were occupied by the Municipal Board does not confer any ownership or title over the Municipal Board. The Ex-Jagirdar still remains the owner of these houses. At the same time under the Jagir Act on the resumption of the Jagir under sec. 22 (i) (g) right, title and interest of the jagirdar vests in the State in these buildings on the jagir land used for Schools and Hospitals that too not within the residential com-pound. The property in dispute does not fall into the above category. Further Sec. 23 sub-sec. 1 (c) of the same Act saves all private buildings belonging to or held by an Jagirdar or any other person from being vested in the State. The property in dispute is a private building and hence there is no question of its being vested in the State on the resumption of the jagir of the respondent. The mere fact that the Municipal Board has incurred some expenditure on it does not confer any right, title or interest over the Board. Further if there is any dispute with regard to the recovery of the expenditure incurred or as regards the ownership between the jagirdar and the Municipal Board it is an inter-se dispute between them and not between the State and the Jagirdar. Thus there is no question of this property being vested in the State. Similarly the Dharmshala which is admittedly known as the haweli of Maji Sahiba and constructed at the expense of the Thikana cannot be considered to have vested in the State on the resumption of the Jagir for the reasons stated above. The mere fact that the Municipality has been holding office in this Dharmshala does not confer any right of ownership over the Municipality. Municipality could be in the possession of the property as a lessee or a licensee. In fact the order under appeal shows that the municipality was lodged in this Dharamshala building as the Department of the Ex-Jagirdar. Surely, therefore on the resumption of the jagir, municipality cannot claim any ownership over the building. Further, Dharmshala the very name, implies, a building, dedicated to the public and the ownership and the management of such building vested in the founders or the trustees. Public are beneficiaries in such buildings. The contention that such building vests in the State on the resumption of a jagir is something unheard of. Therefore there is no force in this contention also. Thirdly, only those tanks which are in the personal occupation of the Jagirdar and not used for irrigating any land as provided in Sec. 23 (1) (b) shall continue to belong to or held by a Jagirdar and would not vest in the State on the resumption of the jagir under sec. 22 of the Jagirs Act. The mere fact that the municipality has unauthorisedly incurred expenditure in the construction of Ghats and in the excavation of the silt does not enable the Municipal Committee to claim any right, title or interest over such property. It has not been argued before us that this tank irrigates the lands of tenant. It is certainly not the contention of the Municipal Board as an objector to the proceedings, nor this point has been raised by the Tehsildar and a dispute referred under sec. 23 (ii) to the Jagir Commissioner for determination. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the tank irrigates the lands of the tenant. On the contrary it has been admitted before the Jagir Commissioner that the tank has been constructed by the Ex-Jagirdar at his own expense. Therefore the mere fact that the Municipality has unauthorisedly incurred soma expenditure on the construction of some 'ghats' etc. the tank ceases to be the personal property of the Ex-Jagirdar and vests in the State on the resumption of the Jagir. If there is any dispute between the Ex-Jagirdar and the Municipality relating to the right, title and interest of this tank the Civil Courts are there to decide such disputes. But neither the Jagir Commissioner nor this Court of appeal would consider such matters in the light of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Mahipalsingh versus the State. The only point that we have to decide here is whether this property vests in the State or continues to belong to a Jagirdar or any other person as laid down in Sec. 23 of the Jagirs Act. It has also been pointed out by the Jagir Commissioner that the bed of the tank contains the khudkasht land of the Ex-Jagirdar. This fact has not been disputed. Thus there is no force in this contention also. For the reasons stated above this appeal of the State must fail and is accordingly rejected. .;