- (1.) THIS case relates to matmi. The last matmi holder Bhagwan Singh of Istmurari village Baretki, in Tehsil Mahua, District Sawai Madhopur, expired on 10. 6. 51 and his son Narain Singh applied for matmi on 23. 6. 51. The Assistant Collector, after enquiry, recommended resumption on the ground that the grant was given in svt. 1895 during the period of minority administration and therefore the case was covered by the provisions of sec. 18 of the Jaipur State Matmi Rules. The Collector and the Board of Revenue also agreed with this recomm-endation and the case was submitted by the Board of Revenue on 10th December 1954, to the Government for the sanction of H Highness the Rajpramukh. The case was pending consi-deration when the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955, came into force and as such it has again come up before us for decision under sec. 4 (d) of this Act
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the party and have gone through the record of the case as well Village Baretki was originally given in grant to one Bahadur Singh son of Badan Singh in Svt. 1821 but it was resumed in Svt. 1831 as Rao Bahadur Singh left Jaipur State and went over to Alwar. In the Dewani Huzuri record of Jaipur State this village is not shown in Jagir from svt. 1871 to 1874 and in the record of Svt. 1875 it is shown in the list of khalsa villages. Again in the record of svt. 1881, it has been shown as a khalsa village. In svt. 1895, this village has been shown in Ijara Istumrar of Bharat Singh belonging to the stock of Kalyanot. The Superintendent, Dewani Huzur Office has pointed out that in the record prepared during regency in Svt. 1904 & 1907, there is no mention of the grant of this village but in the lists prepared in Svt. 191 land Svt. 1922 there is a mention that village Baretki is on Istumurar tenure. The learned counsel for the appellant admits that the grant was made during the period of minority administration but represents that the grant is not liable to resummon because in the year 1891 A D. (St. 1948) at the time of matmi of Sheo Singh, and ancestor of the last holder it was clearly mentioned that the grant was given in Svt. 1895 and therefore, it was impliedly brought to the notice of the ruler as required under the proviso to rule18 (1) of the Jaipur Matmi Rules. Again matmi has been sanctioned in the name of Bhagwan Singh the last matmidar on 28th October 1900, and, therefore, it should be presumed that it was brought to the notice of the Ruler that the grant was made during minority administration. Rule 18 (1) of the Jaipur Matmi Rules lays down that a grant irrespective of its nature including a bhog, grant, made originally by the Minority administration without the approval of the resident on any date from Pos Budi 9, Svt. 1875 to Bhadwa Sudi 14. Svt. 1908, shall be deemed to be invalid ab initio and no matmi, other than a matmi sanctioned after February 9, 1937, shall be deemed to have validated such grant and the proviso to this rule lays down that, "this rule shall not apply if during the matmi proceedings relating to such grant, the fact that it has been made without authority by the minority administration was specifically brought to the notice of the Ruler and the Ruler sanctioned matmi with full knowledge of the character of the grant". We have carefully gone through the orders sanctioning matmi in favour of Sheo Singh and Bhagwan Singh in 1891 and 1900 A. D. copies of which are one record. In the order of the State Council, dated 12. 1. 1891 sanctioning matmi of Sheo Singh there is a mention that according to the record of Svt. 1895 this village is in their Istumurar tenure and deposit 119 Rs. 500/-per year but now they pay only Rs. 451/ -. Because a mention of the year of grant (i. e. , Svt. 1895) has been made in this order, it is urged that by implication it was borough to the notice of the Ruler that the grant was made during minority administration In the order of matmi in 1900 A. D. there is no mention of Svt. 1895 as the year of grant but this matmi was sanctioned on the basis of previous matmi. The contention of the appellant is absolutely untenable as this does not fulfil the conditions of the statutory provision. The proviso to rule 18 (1) clearly Jays down that the fact that the grant was made during the period of minority administration should have been specifically brought to the notice of the Ruler. In the matmi proceedings subsequent to the giant, the fact that the grant was made during the minority administration has not been specifically brought to the notice of the Ruler, and therefore, the order of 1891 A. D. or the order of 1900 A. D. cannot help the appellant. Moreover the matmi in 1891 or 1900 A. D. was sanctioned prior to February, 1937 (Svt. 1994) and those sanctioned before this date without specifically bringing it to notice of the Ruler cannot be regarded as being covered by the rule. Another point put forward is that in the list of villages prepared in Svt. year 1911 and 1922, village Baretki has been shown in Istumurar grant and this should be good enough to support the claim of the appellant. This contention also does not hold water because these statements by themselves would neither create a grant nor substantiate a grant unless it can be clearly shown that the grant made during minority administration was specifically recognised on that ground, which is not the case now. Moreover, the authenticity of these statements are also challenged on the ground that they were not prepared under any proper sanction and may be only periodical statements showing possession at that particular time. It has further been represented that if the court takes the view that the grant is ab initio void having been made during the period of minority administration, it should not be resumed for the life time of the appellant under rule 18 (7) of the Jaipur State Matmi Rules. This plea is equally untenable for the reason that the appellant cannot be considered to be the last holder and the fact that the grant was made during minority has come to notice only when matmi proceedings were started. Sub-rule (7) of rule 18 lays down that the resumption of a grant can be postponed for the life-time of the existing holder only when enquiry had been started otherwise than in matmi proceedings. This relief could have been claimed by the last holder, if enquiry had been made in this regard during his lifetime and decision taken to declare it as a grant during minority administration. In the written representation submitted to His Highness the Rajpramukh on 10. 2. 55 which is before us, it has been urged that village Baretki was not originally granted in Svt. 1895 but in that year only a regrant was made and the village was originally granted to Dan Singh and Bahadur Singh, who were the ancestors of the appellant and, therefore, rule 18 of the Matmi Rules is not applicable in their case. The genealogical tree on the file when matmi of the last holder was sanctioned in 1900 does not show Dan Singh and Bahadur Singh in the line of the holders and this clearly disproves the contention that Dan Singh and Bahadur Singh were the original grantees of this village. The village was once granted to Bahadur Singh son of Badan Singh in Svt. 1821 and later on resumed in Svt. 1831 and thereafter recorded as khalsa till it was given in ijara istemrar to Bharat Singh in Svt. 1895, altoge-ther a fresh grant on different tenure. In the circumstances explained above, we hold that this grant is ab initio void as it was made during the minority administration and this facts was never brought specifically to the notice of the Ruler thereafter. The result is that under rule 18 (1) of the Jaipur State Matmi Rules, it is liable to resumption. We, therefore, order accordingly. ;