- (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the final award made by the Jagir Commissioner on 28-8-1962 in respect of the jagir of Thikana Sankhu that was resumed on 1-8-1594. The basic year for the calculation of the jagir income is Samvat 2010.
(2.) IN the State appeal, the respondents are Heer Singh, former jagirdar, and the so-called maintenance holders. IN the other appeal the appellant is Maji Govind Kanwar, one of the maintenance holders who is arrayed against Heer Singh and the other maintenance holders. The other maintenance-holders have not put in appearance despite notice, and these appeals have been heard ex parte against them. In the State appeal, the only objection to the final award is in respect of the income allowed under the heads "grazing" and "non-agricultural uses, of land". An amount of Rs. 3,000/-on these two counts was claimed by the jagirdar and allowed by the learned Jagir Commissioner. For the purpose of computing income under these two heads, the average income during the three years preceding the basic year, that is during Samvat 2007, 2008 and 2009 had to be taken into account. The Government Advocate straightaway concedes that the amount of Rs. 506/62 which was a fixed annual demand styled as 'bhunga' did accrue to the jagirdar, but he has objected to any income being allowed under the head "non-agrirlw 1s65 (Revenue Supplement) cultural use of land". It is clear from the order of the Jagir Commissioner that during the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 Samvat, the jagir was under the management of the Court of Wards, and no money was received from third parties for non-agricultural uses of land. The learned Jagir Commissioner has allowed income under this head on the ground that charges in respect of non-agricultural uses of land should have been levied by the Court of Wards. We do not think this view is legally tenable. It has not been shown that there was any fixed demand in respect of non-agricultural uses of land which the Court of Wards failed to collect. On the contrary, the position is that no charges under this head were levied, much less collected, by the Court of Wards. Therefore, no income under this head can be computed on a hypothetical basis. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the State appeal succeeds and the order of the Jagir Commissioner in so far as it allows any income from non-agricultural uses of land (other than Bhunga in the amount of Rs. 506. 62 Paisa) is set aside. The compensation payable to the jagirdar will have to be computed afresh after making this change. In the appeal of Maji Govind Kanwar, the point urged is that persons who are not entitled to maintenance under the provisions of sec. 27 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 have been awarded maintenance allowance, while the maintenance allowance that she had been receiving before the resumption of the jagir has bean depressed in consequence. On going through the impugned order of the learned Jagir Commissioner, we find that he has recognised other maintenance holders including Smt. Govind Kanwar, appellant. Heer Singh, the jagirdar, is an adopted son of Smt. Govind Kanwar, and we are told that Smt. Gulab Kanwar is his natural mother. Smt. Jaswant Kanwar is the wife of the jagirdar, and Smt. Jyoti Kumari and Smt. Bina Kumari are his daughters. Vikram Singh is the son of the jagirdar and Lal Singh and Jagmal Singh are described as the jagirdar's brothers. In admitting so many maintenance-holders, the learned Jagir Commissioner has not referred to the existing jagir law in the matter, nor has he mentioned whether they were actually receiving any maintenance allowance from the jagir. In order to entitle any person to a maintenance allowance it must be shown that such a person is entitled to receive allowance under any existing jagir law. This point having been determined, the next step provided in sec. 27 of the Act is the determination of the amount of the maintenance allowance in each case, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in that section. The impugned order of the learned Jagir Commissioner does not show that he has taken into consideration one of the important factors listed in sec. 27, viz; the amount of maintenance allowance received by each claimant before the resumption of the jagir. As such, we find it difficult to uphold the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner in so far as it concerns the determination of the claims of the maintenance holders. We, therefore, also accept the appeal of Maji Govind Kanwar and remand the case to the Jagir Commissioner for a fresh determination of the claims of the maintenance holders in the light of the observations made above. .;