- (1.) THESE revision petitions are directed against the orders of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, dated 27. 2. 65 rejecting the appeals of the petitioners against the orders of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratangarh, dated 30. 3. 64. , whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had granted the application of the opposite party for compensation under Sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in respect of the Khudkasht land over which the petitioners had acquired khatedari rights by the operation of Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As these petitions arise from similar facts and turn on the same point of law, this common order will dispose of both of them.
(2.) THE main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the opposite party had received compensation in respect of these lands as a Jagirdar and as he could not be the Jagirdar as well as the khatedar at the same time, he was not entitled to receive compensation from the petitioners under Sec. 20. This point has been examined by a Bench of this Board in Panna and others vs. Shri Khet Singh (1964 RRD 136 ). A similar question arose in the above case and the learned Member who heard the case rejected the contention of the subtenants that the opposite party had already obtained compensation as a Jagirdar holding that it was possible for an estate holder to have two capacities, one as an estate holder for which he was entitled to the payment of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act 1952 and the other as a Khatedar or Khudkast holder of the land for which he was entitled to the payment of compensation under Sec. 20 had of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, if his sub-tenants acquired Khatedari rights under Sec. 19 there of. It was held that these two provisions were quite separate and were covered by different Acts and the payment of compensation in one did not debar a person from entitlement to compensation under the other Act. The same view was taken in Bhura vs. Brijlal Singh (1966 RRD 1) and I have no reason to differ from this view. In the cases, now before me, it is admitted that the petitioners are the Shikmi Khatedars of the opposite party and have acquired rights under sec. 19. The two lower courts have arrived at concurrent findings in favour of the opposite party. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to bring forward any of the ingredients which would justify interference with the impugned orders under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. In the result, therefore, these revision petitions are hereby rejected with costs. .;