- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the award passed by the Jagir Commissioner in which a sum of Rs. 54,839/39 NP. alleged to be due from the Jagirdar has not been recovered. The brief facts of the case are that initially the Collector, Jaipur issued form No. 10 for Rs. 51,127/55 NP to be deducted from the compensation of the jagirdars and sum of Rs. 3711/84 NP was to be recovered under sec. 22 (l) (d) of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. The Jagir Commissioner deducted this amount from the compensation of jagirdars. The jagirdars applied to the Collector Jaipur raising the objection that he was not liable to pay the said amount. The Collector decided vide his judgment dated 28-6-61 that the jagirdar was not liable to pay the amount mentioned in form No. 10 issued by him earlier. Subsequently, he wrote a letter to the Jagir Commissioner vide his No. 2211 dated 29-6-61 that the amount mentioned in form No. 10 issued earlier was not due from the Jagirdar. In the meanwhile, the jagirdar came up in appeal before the Board of Revenue against the award of the Jagir Commissioner and produced the letter No. 2211 dated 29-6-61. The Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Jagir Commissioner with the observation that these were matters of accounting and if an amount was not regarded to be payable by the appellants by the very authority which could recover it that could be re-examined by the learned Jagir Commissioner while issuing the bonds. It was further observed that the learned Government Advocate has not got, and very rightly so, any objection to remand the case for the purpose, In the result, the appeal was accepted on the "points of deductions" about which the copies referred to above had been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and the case Was remanded to the learned Jagir Commissioner for re-checking the amount of deductions in accordance with law. On remand, the Jagir Commissioner heard the Government Advocate and issued a revised award according to which the sum of Rs. 51,127/55 NP attached under form No. 10 issued earlier was not held to be payable by the Jagirdar; and the sum of Rs 3711 /84 NP was also held to be not recoverable under sec. 22 (l) (d) of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order of the Jagir Commissioner the Government has come up in the appeal before the Board of Revenue. The learned Government Advocate has argued that originally, form No. 10 once issued by Collector was not subject to consideration by any authority, but subsequently this position was held ultra vires by the High Court of Rajasthan vide their decision reported in Chandra Kant Rao versus State of Rajasthan RLW 1963 page 111. It was, however laid down therein that only the Jagir Commissioner could examine the validity of the form No. 10 issued by the Collector. The impugned judgment of the Jagir Commissioner was dated 10-4-63 ( after the date of the judgment of the High Court) and therefore the Jagir Commissioner was bound to examine the validity of the form No. 10 himself, whereas he (Jagir Commissioner) had simply relied on the letter No. 2211 dated 29-6-61 issued by the Collector and had waived the recovery of Rs. 51,127/55 NP on account of form No. 10 and Rs. 3711/84 NP on account of collection charges under sec. 22 (I) (d) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act from the compensation amount of the jagirdar on the jagirdar on the basis of the same. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the Jagirs Commissioner himself should have gone into the validity and correctness of the form No. 10 and he should not have relied on the letter of the Collector dated 29-6-61. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Collector was the authority who found the jagirdar liable for payment of Rs. 51,157/55 NP and, therefore, he was competent to revise his own order. As an objection was raised before the Collector, he was certainly within his jurisdiction to re-examine the liability of the Jagirdar for the said amount and his letter dated 29-6-61 could not be ignored by the Jagir Commissioner. He has argued that there was no question of issuing a revised form No. 10 as no amount was found due by the Collector against the Jagirdar. He has also contended that the appellant is estopped from taking the plea that the Collector was not authorised to revise form No. 10 as he had not raised any such plea before the Board of Revenue in the previous appeal when the Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Jagir Commissioner, nor any objection of this nature was raised by the appellant before the Jagir Commissioner. He has cited the following rulings in support of this contention. Kuttalingom Ganapaty versus Lekahmana Reddiar reported in AIR Travan-core-Cochin 1951 page 22. According to this, it was held that if a point is not raised in the lower court while dealing with proceedings in remand, no new point could be raised and order reopened to include point. Lilachand Tuljaram Gujar and others versus Mallappa Tukaram Borgavi and others reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court page 85. In this, their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a case not set up in the written statement and not therefore allowed by the High Court to be argued before it, could not be allowed to be made out by the Supreme Court in an appeal from the decision of the High Court. Regarding the amount of Rs. 3711 /84 NP the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the said amount was not found to be recoverable by the Jagir Commissioner after getting the accounts audited from the audit section. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The order of the Board of Revenue whereby the case was remanded to the learned Jagir Commissioner shows that the learned Government Advocate had raised no objection when it was observed by the Members of the Board of Revenue that these were matters of accounting and if an amount was not regarded to be payable by the appellants (present respondents) by the very authority who could recover it that could be re-examined by the learned Jagir Commissioner while issuing the bonds. The observations of the Board of Revenue are very unequivocal and unambiguous. The case was remanded to the learned Jagir Commissioner to redetermine the compensation after taking into account the report of the Collector with regard to the amounts payable by the Jagirdar. The authority cited by the learned Government Advocate ( Chandra Kant Rao versus State of Rajasthan ) lays down that it is the duty of the Jagir Commissioner under sec. 32 (l) (b) of the Act to determine the amount recoverable from the jagirdar and he cannot refuse |to discharge it. It was held therein that in so far as rule 37 C (4) ousts the jurisdiction of the Jagir Commissioner to enquire and determine the amount recoverable from the jagirdar under sec. 22 (l) (e), it is void. A perusal of this case shows that this rule was laid when the Jagir Commissioner had refused to grant the relief claimed by the jagirdar and had directed the petitioner to make his representation to the State Government in this connection, as he felt that he had no jurisdiction to go into the petitioner's claim, presumably on account of the clear provision of rule 37 C (4) of the Rules. The petitioner, then, approached the Government, but failing in the matter, he went up to the High Court by way of this writ petition, in which the petitioner prayed that a mandamus may be issued to the Jagir Commissioner or in the alternative to the Government to hear his representation and to decide it on merits before recovering the arrears of the State loans under sec. 22 (l) (c) of the Act. In allowing the writ, petition, the High Court directed the Jagir Commissioner to entertain the petition of the petitioner and to determine what amount was recoverable from him under sec. 22 (l) (c) of the Act. This authority does not oust the jurisdiction of the Collector to re-examine the validity of form No. 10. In this case, the Jagir Commissioner has relied upon the letter issued by the Collector in this connection. It is not understood what else he should have done. If the demanding authority puts forward no demand, or revises the demand originally sent by it, the only course open to the learned Jagir Commissioner is to accept the demand as sent by the demanding authority. In case of doubt, he can at the most, ask further confirmation from the demanding authority. Any other course would have led to unnecessary harassment of the jagirdar. We have no doubt in our mind that in relying upon the letter of the Collector, the Jagir Commissioner has discharged the duty cast on him. As regards the sum of Rs. 3711/84 NP, we find that the learned Jagir Commissioner has duly examined this amount and has come to the conclusion that this amount is not recoverable under sec. 22 (1) (d) of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act from the jagirdar. The learned Government Advocate, also advanced no reason why the finding of the learned Jagir Commissioner should not be sustained in this regard. In the result, therefore, we find no substance in this appeal and hereby reject the same. . ;