- (1.) IT is proposed to dispose of the above mentioned two appeals by this common order as they arise from the same order of the Deputy Collector Jagir, Jaipur, dated 17. 5. 62 whereby while holding that the matter of succession to this estate should be decided under the Rajasthan Jagirs Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, he directed that the contending claimants for the compensation to be awarded in respect of the Jagir should have their title decided by the Civil Court.
(2.) THIS case has had a long and chequered history. The succession opened on the death of Heeralal muafidar of Bidarka in 1944, when Niranjanlal applied for the mutation of the Matmi in his favour on the ground that he was not only the adopted son of the deceased, but also belonged to the senior line. THIS application was opposed by Govind Narain who claimed to be the nearest collateral of the deceased. After making the necessary enquiries, the Nazim made a recommendation in favour of Niranjan Lal. The Deputy Commissioner also supported this recommendation and sent up the papers to the Board of Revenue of the erstwhile Jaipur State. The Board of Revenue, however, accepted the contention of Govind Narain, and held him entitled to the Matmi of Heera Lal vide its order dated 28. 6. 48. At the same time the case was submitted to the Cabinet for the interpretation of R. 14 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules. In the meantime, the erstwhile State of Jaipur merged in the State of Rajasthan and the matter again came up for consideration before the Board of Revenue constituted under the Ordinance of 1949. On 14. 7. 51, the Board sanctioned the Matmi in favour of Govind Narain. The sanction of the Raj Pra-nmkh was also received on 6. 9. 54. Having felt aggrieved by this order of the Board of Revenue, Niranjan Lal filed an appeal before the Government which was rejected. He then filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. Vide its order dated 31. 3. 55, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the order of the Board of Revenue and held that it was a claim triable by a Civil Court. In the meantime, the Jagir was resumed on 1. 1. 1955. On 23. 7. 55, the Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Ordinance was promulgated. THIS was replaced by the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act on 5. 11. 55. Govind Narain having died on 19. 5. 55, Jagannath applied for succession to the Jagir in place of Govind Narain. The S. D. O. , Dausa, however, held that Niranjan Lal was entitled to the mutation vide his order dated 17. 9. 59. The Deputy Collector Jagir accepted the decision of the S. D. O. , Dausa and made the award in favour of Niranjan Lal on 28. 12. 58. An appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue who accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Deputy Collector Jagir for making an enquiry under sec. 38 of the Jagir Act, vide its order dated 13. 8. 59. Niranjan Lal however, felt aggrieved by this order and filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court who quashed the order of the Board of Revenue vide their order dated 22. 8. 1961, at the same time disallowing Niranjan Lal's request for a declaration that he was the rightful heir and successor of Heeralal's estate, and holding that it would be for the competent forum to decide the question of succession according to law. It was, however, observed that since the matter now related to the payment of compensation only, parties might agree to have the respective claims to compensation determined by the Jagir Commissioner. When the matter went before the Deputy Collector Jagir, he came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction in the matter and directed the parties to have the matter of. the title to compensation decided by the Civil Court while holding that the question of succession should be decided under the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions & Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955. Having felt aggrieved by this order, both the parties have come up in appeal before us. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in appeal No. J/71 is that the lower court has erred in overlooking the fact that it was within its jurisdiction to decide who was entitled to the payment of compensation as it was a matter of enquiry under sec. 37 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act and was, therefore, beyond the scope of the Civil Court. He, further, contends that this case has already been decided by the competent authority in favour of his clients who are, therefore, entitled to receive the compensation. Similarly, the learned counsel for the appellant in appeal No. J/73 contends that the learned Deputy Collector Jagir has not interpreted the previous decisions correctly and has erred in holding that the matter lay under sec. 38 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of jagirs Act. To sum up the question which falls for decision before us, is whether the case is attracted by sec. 37 or sec. 38 of the Jagir Act. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the learned Judges in the writ, petition decided on 28. 8. 61. Examining the question who was competent under the law to decide the question of succession to the Estate, it was observed by their Lordships that the claim to succeed to a Jagir was a civil right, which in the absence or any express or implied bar, a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction was entitled to adjudicate under sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, vide its order dated 31. 3. 1955. the High Court set aside the Board's decision dated 14. 7. 51, sanctioning the Matmi in Govind Narain's name, as being without jurisdiction and the sanction of the Raj Pramukh conveyed in the letter of the Revenue Secretary dated 6. 9. 1954 was also expressly held to be without legal effect for the reasons mentioned in Bahadur Singh vs. Raj Pramukh of Rajasthan cited as ILR 1955. 5 Raj. 693. It was, further, observed by the their Lordships that normally that pronouncement would have been sufficient for the further disposal of the case according to law, but the parties were driven back to the High Court because, in the meantime, the Validation Act had come into force and the Board of Revenue had taken a subsequent decision on 13. 8. 59, holding that the order of the High Court dated 31. 3. 1955 could not be given effect to, on account of the provision of sec. 3 of that Act. The Board had held that the Matmi should be deemed to have been validly sanctioned in favour of Govind Narain and that the only question which remained for decision was who was entitled to be declared Govind Narain's heir to receive the compensation on the resumption of Jagir. In coming to this conclusion the Board pur-ported to rely upon the aforesaid decision in Bahadur Singh vs. The Rajpramukh. The learned Judges, however, held that the Board had apparently gone wrong in understanding its correct import and proceeded to reiterate the legal position in this connection, with particular reference to the provisions of the Validation Act. It was stated by them that it is now well settled law that (i) the recognition of adoption for the purpose of succession was a sovereign act, (ii) the power conferred on the Raj Pramukh under Art. VII (3) of the Covenant lapsed on the coming into force of the Constitution, (iii) that power could no longer be exercised by Raj Pramukh for any one else, (iv) the grant held by a Jagirdar was his property of which he could not be deprived arbitrarily on the coming into force of the Constitution, (v) the question of succession to a Jagir was to be decided in accordance with the personal law applicable to the last holder including the custom or usage relating to the Jagir and (vi) the question of succession to a Jagir had become a purely civil matter justiciable by the ordinary courts of the land like succession to any other property. So far as the Validation Act was concerned, it was observed that under it, specific courts had been designated as forums for deciding the pending and the future cases of disputes relating to succession to the rights and titles of the Jagirdars and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts had been barred so that it was for the courts mentioned in the Validation Act to decide the matter judicially according to law as an ordinary civil dispute. Applying these dicta to the instant case, it was held that decision of the Board of Revenue dated 13. 8. 1959 was not in accordance with the law, as it revised its earlier decision to 14. 7. 51 despite the fact that that decision was based on the continued recognition or the right of the Ruler to recognise succession, even after the coming into force of the Constitution At the same time, it was, further, observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts had been barred by sec. 5 of the Validation Act. It was stated that the Validation Act provides the forum for the decision of such cases on the basis of the personal law of the last holder, including custom and usage. As the above narration shows, it is obvious that the learned Deputy Collector Jagir in referring the parties to go to a Civil Court has manifestly misinterpreted the judgment of the High Court dated 28. 8. 61 in the writ petition filed by Niranjanlal against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13. 8. 1959. As the succession opened before resumption viz. in 1944, it goes without saying that the matter will be attracted by sec. 37 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, according to which every question referred to in sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Jagirs Decisions & Proceedings (Validation) Act has to be enquired into and decided by a revenue officer or court declared by the provision of the said Act competent to do so. It may be observed that the impugned order suffers from ambivalence in so far as on the one hand it lays down that the question of succession should be decided under the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions & Proceedings (Validation) Act, on the other it directs the parties to have the matter of compensation decided by a Civil Court. It need not be said that compensation shall be awarded to the party which succeeds in establishing its title to the succession of the Jagir in a court of competent jurisdiction. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting these appeals and setting aside the impugned order in so far as it directs the parties to have the matter of the award of compensation adjudicated by a Civil Court. The case is remitted to the Collector, Jaipur, for proceedings inaccordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions & Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 in the light of the observations made above. Per Shri Gajendra Singh - I agree with the conclusion arrived at in the above judgment written out by my learned colleague, but before the judgment in this case is announced I would like to make some observations in order to clarify certain law points involved in this case. Before I enunciate the law which would govern the disposal of the issues raised in this case it would be proper to give the salient facts of the case. They are briefly as follows - The last recorded muafidar of this muafi land of Bidarka, Tehsil Lalsot, District Jaipur was Hiralal. He died in February, 1944 and the question of his succession arose. Two persons claimed succession to this muafi - one was Brij Mohan, who claimed that he was adopted by the deceased muafidar and the other was Govind Narain, who claimed succession as the nearest heir. This is an admitted fact that the question far succession to this muafi arose long before the resumption of this jagir which took place on 1. 1. 1955. Therefore, the succession to this muafi was to be governed by the Jaipur Matmi rules. While this case of succession to the muafi of Hiralal was pending, the Board of Revenue naturally decided the case in accordance with the matmi rules and the sanction of the Raj Pramukh had to be obtained according to the rules then prevailed, but when the case went up in the writ jurisdiction in the High Court of Rajasthan, a decision was taken by their Lordships that as the Constitution of India was promulgated and the Raj Pra-mukh's power came to end, the case should have been decided by the ordinary Civil Court and not by any special Court. Soon after this decision of the High Court, the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Act, 1955 came into force which not only validated the decisions given by the Revenue Courts and the Raj Pramukh prior to the promulgation of the Constitution of India, but it created a special forum of Revenue Officers to decide all questions pertaining to recognition of succession and adoption by the hierarchy of Revenue Officers. In spite of this legislation the Board of Revenue in appeal in 1959 took a different view and declared Govind Narain as Muafidar and remanded the case back by their judgment dated 13. 8. 1969 to the lower revenue court. The High Court in their judgment dated 8 8-1961 again intervened and quashed the order of the Revenue Board by holding that in view of the special legislation contained in Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Act, 1955, the case should now be decided in the forum laid down by that Act. The case was then sent back to the Deputy Collector, Jagir who came to the conclusion that since the Jagir of Bidarka had already been resumed and there was a dispute between the claimants they should get the dispute settled u/s. 38 of the Jagir Act, hence this appeal.
(3.) IN this matter a decision of the High Court dated 8. 2. 1961 is amply clear, because due the special legislation of the Validation Act 1955, the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred. Therefore, this matter of succession to a jagir prior to its resumption must be decided in accordance with the forum created by the Validation Act, 1955 i. e. by the Revenue Officers. Sec. 37 sub-sec. 2 of the Jagir Act also lavs down that every question referred to in Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Act, 1955 shall be enquired into and decided by the Revenue Officer or Court declared by the provisions of that Act competent to do so. It is an admitted fact that the dispute with regard to succession of this muafi of Bikarda arose in 1944 i. e. prior to resumption and not subsequent to the resumption of that jagir and therefore the pending case of succession between Rao Brij Mohan and the descendants of Govind Narain should have been decided by the Revenue Officers in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Act and not by the Deputy Collector Jagir exercising the power of the Jagir Commissioner u/s 37 of the Jagir Act, relating to the question of right, title and interest in any jagir land. This was also not a case u/s,38 of the Jagir Act of 1952 by which compensation payable to a Jagirdar who dies before the full payment of such compensation has to be disposed of by the Collector upon an enquiry, but in case of dispute the Collector has to direct the claimants to have their respective title adjudicated upon by the competent Civil Court. Thus the Collector, Jagir committed a manifest error of law in directing the Parties to go to the Civil Court for getting the dispute decided. Therefore, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my learned colleague, setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Jagir who directed that the right to the payment of compensation be adjudicated by a civil Court. The case is therefore remanded to the Collector Jaipur u/s 37 sub-sec. 2 of the Jagir Act to dispose of the question of pre-resumption succession of the Jagir of Hiralal in accordance with the then existing Jagir law exercising the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon him and the other Revenue Officer under the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Act, 1955. This case has been pending since 1944 and as ample opportunities had been given to the contending parties and much evidence had already been adduced upon to start this case afresh. They should be heard first and only if any special evidence is required to be adduced, the same may be taken after giving ample opportunity to both the parties. The parties should then be heard and the case disposed of without any delay. .;