- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 3. 9. 1963 in claim No. F (16) JC/mdp.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the jagir of Isarda Distt. Sawai Madhopur was to be resumed under Government Notification No. F (4) (388) Rev. A/53 dated 25. 6. 1954 with effect from 1. 7. 54 but this Thikana could not be resumed in view of the stay orders obtained by the jagirdar from the High Court of Rajasthan and subsequently from the Supreme Court of India. Ultimately, the above Thikna was resumed under Government notification No. F. 4 (388) Rev. A/53 dated 27. 7. 1955 with effect from 1. 8. 55, and the claim of the jagirdar for compensation was finalized on 3. 9. 1963. THE State has now come up in appeal before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the amount of Rs. 7 2071/34 collected by the jagirdar during the stay period has not been deducted from the compensation of the appellant. The learned counsel for the State has argued that the Supreme Court, vide their order dated 20. 9. 54, had directed that jagir of the appellant should not be resumed but this order was modified on 20. 12. 54. According to the modified order, it was directed that the possession of the jagirdar should not be disturbed until the disposal of the petition pending before the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution, on the condition that if the petition under Art. 32 was dismissed the State of Rajasthan would be entitled to deduct from the compensation awardable to the petitioner the 'net income' as calculated in accordance with clause 4 (i) (ii) and (iii) minus the proviso thereto of second schedule of the aforesaid Act for the duration of the period of the order of stay. He has argued that the learned Jagir Commissioner has seriously erred in not deducting this amount from the compensation of the appellant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that unless the jagir is resumed nothing can be recovered from the jagirdar in terms of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 20. 12. 54. He has argued that vide Notification F. 4 (388) Rev. A/53 dated 16. 7. 54 the jagir of the appellant was excluded from resumption. He contends that the jagir was resumed with effect from 1. 8. 55 and hence no amount prior to this period can be recovered from the respondent in view of sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act which reads as follows: "21. Resumption of jagir lands - As toon as may be after the commencement of this Act,, the Government may, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, appoint a date for the resumption of any class of jagir lands and different dates may be appointed for different classes of jagir land. (2) The Government, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, vary any date appointed under this section at any time before such date. (3) The date finally appointed under this section in relation to the resumption of any jagir lands is hereinafter referred to as the 'date of resumption' of those jagir lands. " This contention is not without substance. It is true that originally it was intended to resume this Thikana on 1. 7. 54 but subsequently the Government decided to exclude this Thikana from resumption on 1. 7. 54 and did not resume it until 1. 8. 55. Under sec. 21 (3) the date of resumption of this Thikana must therefore be held to be 1. 8. 55. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned Government Advocate that the right, title and interest of the jagirdar in his jagir lands should be deemed to have been extinguished on 1. 7. 54 as the Thikana should normally have been resumed on that date which was the date originally appointed for the resumption of this class of Jagirs. The original intention of the State Government is not denied. However, the actual resumption was deferred because of the stay petitions. The Government cannot, therefore, now turn around and claim that the Thikana was actually resumed on 1. 7. 54. The factual position is that the State Government was debarred from resuming the Thikana on the date originally appointed. The stay order of 20. 9. 54 is unambiguous. Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court modified the stay order and allowed the benefit of deductions contemplated under clause 4 of Schedule II to the State Government. Nevertheless these deductions are relevant to the actual date of resumption as under sec. 22 it is from the date of resumption that the right, title and interest of the jagirdar stands resumed to the Government, free from all encumbrances. The argument of the learned Government Advocate is obviously based on a presumption and we do not find it possible to accept the same. In the result, therefore, we find no substance in this appeal and hereby reject the same. .;