- (1.) SHRI Tejraj appellant has filed this appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act against the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner,, Jaipur dated 27-12-1962 declaring some properties as the personal property of the appellant ex-jagirdar on resumption of his jagir lands. The appellant claimed that item 30-A of the list of the personal property filed by him was a Fort-wall and should be declared as his personal property. The Jagir Commissioner, after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that the item No. 30-A of the list was not a Fort-wall but a City wall of the appellant's jagir village and as such a thing of public utility which could not be declared as the personal property of the appellant.
(2.) THE counsel for the appellant in the present appeal contends that the wall comes within the ambit of sec. 23 of the Jagir Act and it is saved from being resumed under sec. 22 of the Act. It was constructed and maintained at the expense of the appellant ex-jagirdar and his ancestors. THE counsel for the appellant cited the definition of building given in Blacks Law Dictionary which means an edifice or a structure. THE Government Advocate's reply was that the city-wall could not be termed as a building much less the private building of the ex-jagirdar. It encloses the houses of the residents of the village and as such could not be deemed as private. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and have perused the record. When a jagir is resumed under sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of the Jagirs Act, the consequences of resumption are enumerated in sec. 22 which lays down that from the date of resumption of any jagir land, the right, title and interest of the jagirdar and of every other person claiming through his jagir lands, including forests, trees etc. shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances. Sec. 22 (g) lays down that the right, title and interest of the jagirdar on all buildings on jagir lands used for schools and hospitals which are not within the residential compounds would also stand extinguished. Sec. 23 saves only that property from being vested in the State on the resumption of the jagir, which is enumerated in that section of the Jagir Act which on resumption shall continue to belong to the jagirdar or such other person Sec. 23 sub-sec. 1 (b) (iii) saves all private buildings etc. from being vested in the State on resumption of a jagir. The question before us is whether this wall is a private building or not. The appellant says that it is a fort wall, but the Government Advocate claims that item 30 A is a City wall. During the time of the argument however, the counsel for the appellant conceded that the wall is not the fort wall but a city-wall. It means that it is a wall which has been built for the protection of the town Genta and encircles the entire village. The question, therefore, which is for decision now remains before us is whether the city wall is a building within the meaning of sec. 23 of the Jagir Act or not. "building" is no-where defined in the Jagir act, but as used in common parlance, building means a structure. Black's Law Dictionary defines building in the following manner: "the term generally, though not always implies the idea of a habitation for the permanent use of man or an erection connected with his permanent use. " It means a structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls and usually, but not necessarily covered by a roof. From the above meaning, it is clear that a building must afford a cover, must enclose a space and should provide a permanent habitation. Applying these ingredients of the term building to the present City wall, we find that no doubt, it is an edifice or a structure, but it does not provide a permanent habitation or a shelter and it is not roofed. Thus the city wall is clearly not a building, much less it is private as it encompasses not only the building of the jagirdar but also a number of houses in the village and, therefore, it has no characteristic of a private property. The counsel for the appellant finally urged that the appellant should at least be allowed to retain the houses and rooms in the city wall and drew our attention to State of Rajasthan vs. Shri Bhagwatsingh ( R. R. D. 1964 p. 168 ) wherein the houses located in the city wall on both sides of the gate were allowed to be retained as the personal property of the jagirdar. We have no hesitation in accepting this request of the counsel for the appellant and direct that if there are any houses or rooms in the City wall which answer the characteristics of a building as defined above they would certainly continue to belong to the appellant ex-jagirdar, but the City wall as such cannot be allowed to remain the property of the jagirdar because under sec. 22, the right, title and interest in the jagir lands on resumption vested in the State free from all incumbrances. The appeal of the appellant is, therefore, rejected subject to the observations made above with regard to the rooms and the houses located inside the City wall. .;