- (1.) A similar point is involved in all these six appeals. Hence they will be disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) THE appellants have been holding government lands for some generations. When in the 1936 Settlement their holdings were assessed, they raised an objection that they were entitled to continue at the old rates of rent which according to them were in perpetuity. In some cases Pattas were produced in support of this contention. THE appellants objected to the assessment of the full village rates upon their holdings. THEse objections though started some time in 1939, could not be decided till the formation of the State of Rajasthan. Eventually all these cases came up before the Settlement Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan) who relying on a decision of the Board in case No. 59/jaipur, Svt. 2009 (Ramopal Mahajan vs. State) held that the claims of the appellants were untenable. THE appellants went up in appeal before the Addi-tonal Settlement Commissioner, but met with no success. Hence this second appeal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The Pattas wherever they exist, show that the grantees were required to rehabilitate the land or construct wells and a specific rate of rent was fixed upon the holding. There is absolutely nothing in these Pattas to suggest that these rates were to continue for all time to come. As a general rule concessions granted during the continuance of a Settlement are meant to continue only till the expiry of the term of that Settlement, unless specified otherwise. As already observed above, in these cases there is nothing to show that these rates were settled in perpetuity. The learned counsel for the appellants however invited our attention to a decision of the State Council, Jaipur, dated 8th June, 1945, (Government vs. Ajitmal ). This decision was about 20 years prior to the commencement of the Settlement operations and obviously contains nothing about subsequent Settlements being operative upon these holdings or not. However the concluding paragraph of this judgment shows that the conditions of the tenancy were at that time understood to be capable of modification and this is enough to show that the Pattas were not intended to fix the assessment in perpetuity. The principles which govern the fixation of rent rates have been laid down in sec, 80 of the Jaipur State Land Grants Tenures Act and no provision has been made therein for the continuance of such privileges as are claimed by the appellants in these cases. The appellants have not been able to show us any law or rules according to which they may have been entitled to such privileges at the time of the 1,939, Settlement. There is thus no substance in all these appeals which are hereby rejected. .;