- (1.) SHRI Hanuman Singh petitioner has filed these two revision petitions against the order passed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated 11-7-63 against two different respondents Ganpat and Likhma. Since both these revision petitions raised a common point of law they were heard together and this single order disposes both of these petitions. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Khatedar of certain holdings in village Anekhoo in tehsil and district Sikar. The respondents being sub-tenants acquired Khatedari rights by virtue of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therefore the petitioner filed an application under sec. 20 of the aforesaid Act claiming compensation for the land for which Khatedari rights were acquired by the respondents. The Sub-Divisional Officer paid compensation to the petitioner not on the basis of assessed rent rate but on the admission of the petitioner's own witness Kan Singh at the rate of two annas per Bigha which the petitioner charged for the land. Against this payment of compensation at lesser rate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur but remained unsuccessful against both the respondents. He has, therefore, come up in revision before the Board of Revenue.
(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner's only contention was that the land in respect of which the respondents acquired Khatedari rights was a settled land and the current jamabandi already contained the rent rate on the basis of which he should have been paid compensation. This contention was attempted to be repelled by the counsel for the respondents by saying that the petitioner failed to file a copy of settlement record to prove his rent rate and the subordinate courts have readily paid the compensation on the basis of the admission made by petitioners witness. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. The petitioner's application for payment of compensation was under sec. 20 of the Tenancy Act for payment of compensation of the Khatedari rights acquired by his sub-tenants under sec. 19 of the aforesaid Act on the appointed date i. e. on 5-4-1959. Under such circumstances landholder is entitled to the payment of compensation for the loss of his Khatedari rights in a manner provided under sec. 23 of the Tenancy Act which runs as follows: "compensation for Khatedari rights - (1) the amount of compensation payable to a landholder under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 19 for the accrual of right under that section in respect of the whole or a part of the holding of tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant shall be in the case of unirrigated lands, fifteen time and in the case of irrigated lands, twenty times - (a) The rent rate sanctioned for such holding or part during the last settlement, where rent in respect thereof has been settled, or (b) Where rent in respect of such holding or part has not been settled the rent rate sanctioned during the last settlement for similar land in the neighbourhood. " It is an admitted fact that the land in respect of which the respondents acquired Khatedari rights was an unirrigated land, and this the petitioner was entitled to the payment of the compensation for three times the rent rates sanctioned for such holding. The counsel for the petitioner no doubt drew my attention to the entries of the jamabandi for this land in dispute from Samvat 2013 to 2016 in which the rent of the holdings has been mentioned. It was necessary therefore for the trial court to determine the rent on the basis of the settlement record what was the rent rate fixed for this holding. No reason has been given to discard the entries of the jamabandi filed by the petitioner for the purposes of calculation of compensation payable to him. On the contrary, the trial court mistakenly adopted the rates of two annas per bigha which was mentioned by the petitioner's witness in his statement before the court. In such cases no oral statements of the witnesses are necessary. The law on the subject is so clear that the court has to apply the rent rate sanctioned for the field in question or where no rent has been sanctioned during the last settlement, then a rent rate sanctioned for similar lands in the neighbourhood during the last settlement should be applied. There is no finding of the trial court or the first appellate court whether any rent rate was sanctioned or not. From the copy of the jamabandi on file it appears that rent rate has been sanctioned and there was no reason to discard this rent rate at the time of awarding compensation to the applicant-petitioner. If no rent rate was sanctioned then the rate prevailing in the similar land could have been applied for the purpose of calculating compensation, but there is no provision in law for the court below to record evidence of witnesses in order to determine at what rate a Khudkast holder or a Khatedar should be paid compensation for the rights acquired by the subtenant or tenant of Khudkasht. These are purely quasi judicial proceedings and the law has provided a summary remedy for quick disposal of these applications on the basis of which the assistant Collector has to dispose of all such applications pending before him. The order of the Assistant Collector as well as of the Revenue Appellate Authority is clearly illegal and improper in ordering payment of compensation at a rate different from what was prescribed by law and 'deserves to be set aside for the reason stated above. I accept the revision petition of the petitioner against both the respondents, quash the orders of the two subordinate authorities and direct that compensation be paid to the petitioner strictly in accordance with sec. 23 of the Tenancy Act on the basis of settled rent rates after obtaining the record of rights and determining the rent rate prevailing on the appointed date. Ordinarily a relevant copy of the jamabandi by the petitioner should invariably be taken at the time of disposing such applications. .;