- (1.) THESE four second appeals field against the appellate order of the Additional Commis-sioner Udaipur were decided in favour of the appellants by an order of the Revenue Board dated 27th March, 1953 and the allotment of agricultural land made by the lower courts in favour of respondents was ordered to be cancelled. The respondents presented four review petitions before the Revenue Board and the same were accepted with the result that the orders of the Revenue Board dated 27-3-1953 were set aside and the appeals were readmitted to be heard by the Division Bench concerned.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant Nathraj was a muafidar of village Bindyka, Tehsil Badi Sadri and the respondents who wanted some land for purposes of cultivation applied the Tehsildar Badi Sadri asking for allotment of 50 bighas of land to each of them in this village as Shikmi tenants. THE application was forwarded to the amin concerned who recommended the allotment. THE S. D. O. submitted the case to the Collector who ordered on the 12th December,1950,that if there were no objection the land be allowed to the respondent and entries in the records be made. Instead of disposing of the objections of some of the cultivators and other residents of the village, against this allotment on the ground that there was a dearth of agricultural and grazing land in the village and that if any allotment of land was to be made at all it should be given to the residents of the village who had not sufficient land with them to cultivate the Tehsildar ordered the entries as to be made in the name of the respondents and consigned the application of the objectors to record. THE same Tehsildar also asked the amin to fix the boundary marks of the land attached to the respondents. Nathraj the appellant who is the muafidar of the village having known this filed an application before the Collector praying that the order given by the Tehsildar be cancelled. THE Collector sent this application to the Tehsildar for report. In the meantime. Nathraj the appellant filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner Udaipur, against interim order of 12-12-1950 made by the Collector. THE Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal and held that the allotment of land in question made by the subordinate officers was in accordance with the powers vested in them. In second appeal, the Revenue Board observed that the allotment of land was ab initio irregular inasmuch as the Tehsildar made the allotment contrary to the orders of the Collector and in a surreptitious manner. In review, however, this order was set aside. Accordingly we have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to the competency of the appellant to contest these appeals after the promulgation of the Raj. Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (Amendment) Act, 1954. It is contended that after the passing of the Act, the muafi village of the appellant wherein the land in question is situated has since been resumed, and in consequence of resumption of the estate, according to the provisions of sec. 22 of the Act the right, title, and interest of the Jagirdar (a Jagirdar includes a muafidar as defined in Sec. 2, g & h read with first schedule) and of every other person claiming through him in his jagir land; including forests, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, village sites, huts, bazars and mela grounds and mines and minerals whether being worked out or not, shall stand resumed to the Government free from encumbrances". It was, therefore, urged that the rights about the allotment of agricultural lands in their jagir land which were exercisable by Jagirdars by reason of their holding these capacities, could no longer be exercised by them. Further, it was argued that the rights which were saved by the Act, do not include right to land transferred without land lord's consent. It was stressed, therefore, that in view of these provisions of the Act, the muafidar appellant had lost all his rights in the estate and the same are no longer enforceable against the respondents even if an irregularity was committed by the subordinate revenue courts in making the aforesaid allotment. In the circumstances, we give a notice to the Government Advocate calling upon him to obtain instructions from the Government, if they wanted to prosecute this appeal,as a successor in title. The Government Advocate however presented an order of the Government dated 22-4-55 whereby the Government did not want to prosecute this case. We have now to decide whether, the appellant is competent to prosecute this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that his case was governed by Order22 rule 10 (i) C. P. C. which reads as below: - "in other cases of an assignment creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit, may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. " It was urged that the expression "assignment creation or devolution of any interest" within the meaning of Order 22,rule 10 (i) includes expropriation and that the estate having been resumed, the rights of the munafidar were not destroyed but passed on to the State who stepped in the shoes of the muafidar in consequence of the resumption and even if the Government did not choose to prosecute those appeals the appellant had not lost his right merely because the lost he estate as a result of the new law while these appeals were pending in the court of the Additional Commissioner or this court. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. We find that there is not much force in what the learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us inasmuch as that order 22, rule 10 (i) C. P. C. does not seem to be applicable to this case. In a similar case which come up for decision before the Full Bench of Nagpur High Court, reported in AIR 1953 Nagpur page 361 - his lordship Sinha C. J. observed as below - "the State Government is not in the position of the assignee interest of the proprietor, nor is it his successor in title, The State does not claim the proprietory interest, either through or under the outgoing proprietor. The State as the ultimate owner of all property situate with in its boundaries,naturally becomes the owner of all property in villages except those interest which have been recognised by the State as still vesting in or held by individuals in their rights as cultivators or as house holder by virtue of being inhabitants of the village or as having acquired by purchase or otherwise house sites or buildings on house sites. In view of these considerations, the provisions of Rule 10 or 22 C. P. C. are out of way. " We are, in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the lordship the C. J. of Nagpur High Court. The fact that consequent on the passing of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs,act,1952 the existence of a muafidar has been completely wiped off, can not be lost sight of. It, the refore,natually follows that the rights which were exercisable by the former jagirdar and muafidar etc. by reason of their holding these capacities can no longer be exercised by them. It may be that the cause of action for enforcing their respective rights arose long before the Act came into force, but as those rights had not matured into vested rights, because these appeals had yet to be finally disposed of, it is difficult to see how they can be enforced. The State as the ultimate-owner of the resumed muafi grant has not chosen to prosecute these appeals and for reasons stated about the appellant has already lost all the rights to prosecute those appeals. In view of these facts the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents must prevail and the appeals must fail due to the incompetency of the appellant to prosecute them. As regards the correctness of the order given by the lower courts about the allotment of land it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that according to the provisions of Ordinance X of 1949,of the United States of Rajasthan Jagirdars (Abolition of Powers) Act, all powers in Jagirdars in connection with the revenue and forest were abolished and vested in the Government or in the appropriate officer or authority of the Government in the same manner and to the same effect to which they vested in the Government or such officer or authority for other areas, and that in pursuance of this Collector was competent to make the allotment of unoccupied lands for purpose of cultivation, to the respondents in this Muafi village. It is further urge that according to Revenue Secretary's notification No. 177/49, dated 23rd May, 1949, it was again clarified that 'jagirdars should have nothing to do with lands other than Hawala or Khudkasht lands including unoccupied or not or land should be controlled by the Tehsildar and pattas for such lands for agricultural as well as residential use should be issued by the Tehsildars. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that subsequently Government had withdrawn these orders under Government order dated 22 Feb. , 1951, No. F. 4/306, Rev. II/50 and the jagirdars were given back their rights which they used to exercise in the past. There is no force in this contention as the Additional Commissioner has rightly observed that this allotment of land was made on 12-12-1950 prior to the issue of the order referred to above and the order of the Collector dated 2-2-1951 was only to confirm the said order. We, therefore, agree with the learned Additional Commissioner and hold that the order of allotment given by the subordinate courts was not irregular. The result is that all the four appeals stand rejected and the order given by the learned Additional Commissioner is upheld. . ;