- (1.) ALL these three appeals arise out of one order of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur dated 2. 4. 1955, in a case relating to reservation of grazing lands in village Saradi Tehsil Salumber.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. No question of law has been shown to exits in all these second appeal. The following land has been reserved for grazing. Bighas Biswas. Beeldi 13 numbers . . . . . . . . . 290 11 Bhand 2 numbers . . . . . . . . . 251 18 Number 588 . . . . . . . . . Pairiwala . . . . . . . . . 58 3 Dholi Magri number . . . . . . . . . 46 0 52. 60 and 64. - - - - 546 19 Appeal No. 21:-The appellant, contention is that the land reserved for grazing purposes (details given above) is insufficient looking to the number of cattle and hence the land which has been allotted to some landless tenants for cultivation should be taken out of their possession and reserved for grazing. The total number of the cattle in the village is reported to be 1586 which includes a considerable number of goats and sheep. The scale of half bigha per cattle head laid down in Government of Rajasthan latter No. F. 1 (165) Rev. II/52, dated 23rd April, 53 cannot be said to lay down any rigid or inflexible rule. It simply pres-cribesarough scale which may be followed, as far as possible and may be varied in accor-dance with the local circumstances. It was also argued before us that no notice was issued by the Collector inviting objections as laid down in para four of the Government order referred to above. This contention too is without any substance. The only condition laid down in the letter is that the proposal which the S. D. O. made to the Collector should be announced on the village. This was duly complied with and it is significant to observe that the appellants did not think it fit to raise any objections either before the S. D. O. or before the Collector. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that they were under the impres-sion that the objections were to be raised before the Collector and hence they ignored the notice issued by the S. D. O. and did not raise any objection before him. This attitude is clearly untenable. When they came to know of the notice inviting objections they should have appeared either before the S. D. O. or the Collector. It seems that they deliberately omitted to prefer any objections and now desire to make capital out of their own deliberate omission. There has been substantial compliance with the procedure laid down m this circular order of the Government. The appeal is without any substance. Appeals Nos. 30 and 31:--The contentions raised in these appeals are that khasra numbers 588, 52, 66 and 64 reserved for grazing purposes should be released and be made available for allotment to landless tenants for purposes of cultivation. The contention is based on the ground that there exists a number of landless tenants whose requirments should be given priority over grazing grounds. We find no substance in this. A considerable area has been allotted for cultivation to landless tenants. The area reserved for cattle cannot be said to be excessive of their requirements but is just enough to meet them. In the agrarian economy cattle wealth also occupies prominent place and its preservation and improvement are factors which cannot be ignored in balancing the requirements of cultivation and grazing grounds. Most of the subordinate officers who have dealt with the case have gone to the spot and examined the local conditions. As a result thereof they have all unanimously come to the conclusion that these khasra numbers should also be reserved for grazing as they would provide some superior type of fodder and grass which is not available in the other portions of the reserved area. We find no substance in these appeals too. All the three appeals are, therefore, rejected. .;