- (1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated thus - On 20-5-1937 the Revenue Minister of the former Jaipur State after examining the proposal submitted to him by the Dewan on the subject sanctioned a maintenance allowance in favour of the Chhut bhaiyas of Thikana Bagari. On 20-4-1951, Shri Nirmal Chand Chhut Bhaiya presented a petition to the Collector, Jaipur praying for recovery of the allowance and stating that the system of monthly payments of the khangi if inconvenient to the Thikana may be changed over to quarterly. On 12-7-51 the Thikana agreed to pay the allowance in six monthly instalments payable on 1st March, and 1st September in each year. THE instalments that were payable upto 1st March, 1954 are not at all in dispute. On 30-8-54, Shri Nirmal Chand applied to the Collector for the issue of a notice to the Thikana directing them to pay the allowance on 1st September, 1954 or at the latest upto 8th September, 1954. Notice was issued to the Thikana. It appears that the Thikana paid no heed to this notice and that led to presentation of a series of petitions on behalf of the chhut bhaiyas in this connection. One such application was presented on 21-12-1954 to the Commissioner, Jaipur Division, who forwarded the same to the Collector. THE Collector directed the issue of a notice on 12-1-1955 to the Thikana to which the Thikana submitted a reply on 31-1-1955. It was contended on behalf of the Thikana that "if the chhut bhaiya concerned has any dues against the Thikana, he should file a suit on payment to proper court fees and action, if any, can be taken only when the suit is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. " THE learned Collector passed the following order on the back of this application - "inform the applicant that the amount is khangi payable to Shri Nirmal Chand under orders of the Jaipur Government. THE notice has been issued under my orders and if there is anything he objects to he may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner. " THE Thikana went up in appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Jaipur, who held that the order regarding grant of maintenance allowance was executable and hence the order of the Collector did not call for any interference. Hence this second appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. EIaborate arguments were advanced before us on behalf of the appellant that the order of the Revenue Minister of the former Jaipur State was without jurisdiction and hence could not be executed. A. I. R. 1954 Rajasthan 182 (1955 RLW 120) was also cited in this connection. It was held in this case that - "the Jaipur Hitkarni committee Rules, 1945, were hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution and were ultra vires in as much as they did not provide a better procedure as compared to the fixation of maintenance allowance by courts. " On behalf of the respondent's counsel attention was invited to Para 16 of this decision. Rule 12 of the Hitkarni Committee Rules lays down that the decisions of the Revenue Minister and of the Committee (Hitkarni) shall be executed by the Deputy Commissioner. Their lordships were pleased to observe that the meaning of this rule would be that "the Deputy Commissioner as a court should execute the orders of Revenue Minister and the Hitkarni Committee, as if it was the decree of his Court. " As the manner of execution in that case was not found to be of that type, proceedings were held invalid and it was pointed out that a proper application for execution as required for revenue decrees should have been made before the Deputy Commissioner. It therefore, be comes perfectly clear from this authority that order of the Revenue Minister or of the Hitkarni Committee regarding fixation of khangi or maintenance allowance could be executed by a Collector provide a proper application for execution of the same is presented in the manner laid down for execution of Revenue decrees. It was argued or behalf of the appellant that the order of the Revenue Minister of the former Jaipur State passed in 1937 did not come within the scope of the Jaipur Hitkarni Committee Rules, 1945. WE find no substance in this contention. The 1937 order itself shows that according to the then usage authority in such matters vested in the Revenue Minister. The scheme contemplated in the Jaipur Hitkarni Committee Rules, 1945 also clearly shows that prior to the enforcement of these rules all authority in such matters vested in the Revenue Minister. These rules conferred some jurisdiction upon those committees who were required to submit recommendations in khangi cases to the Revenue Minister whose orders were to be final. Rule 12 clearly lays down that the decisions of the Revenue Minister and of the Committee in matters in which the Committees are empowered to pass others shall be executed by the Deputy Commissioner. There is absolutely no thing in these rules to suggest that the orders of the Revenue Minister which could be executed by the Deputy Commissioner were only those which were passed by the Revenue Minister after the enforcement of rules and not prior to them. It is also to be observed that the appellant had all along during this period of about 16 years continuously paying this amount and never raised any objection as to the excitability of the order of the Revenue Minister. WE therefore hold that the order is capable of execution and the orders of lower courts are justifiable to that evtent. But the procedure which has hitherto been followed in this case is open to serious objection. Chapter V of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, provides the procedure for execution of decrees and orders. Rules 119 and 120 lay down the requirements of an application for execution. Rule 121 lays down the powers of the court to enforce execution. The notice issued by the lower court to realise through zabti is too vague to mean anything specific besides being not in accordance with the modes of execution, pointed out above. It may also be observed (hat the executing court is bound to decide all objections that may be raised regarding the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree and a mere direction that the objector should go to the appellate authority is clearly untenable. WE would, therefore, partly allow this appeal, modify the orders of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the Collector Jaipur with the direction that the application for execution be got suitably amended and proceedings for execution be taken in accordance with law. .;