- (1.) THIS is the State Government's appeal No. 91/1964 against the decision of the Jagir Commissioner, dated 28. 7. 1964. Amar Singh, respondent, in this appeal has also filed a cross-objection No. 2/1965 against the same decision of the Jagir Commissioner referred to above. The appeal and the cross-objection being connected with the same decision were consolidated and heard together. THIS single order disposes of both the appeal and the cross-objection.
(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent, Shri Amar Singh, that the decision of the Jagir Commissioner dated 28. 7. 1964 against which the present appeal and the cross-objection were filed, had been reviewed on an application filed by the respondent on 24. 9. 1964, by the Jagir Commissioner on 8. 12. 1964, and thus the earlier decision of the Jagir Commissioner no longer stands and that the appeal and the cross-objection have thus become infructuous. To this objection, the reply given by the Government Advocate was that in the present appeal before the Board, the income from grazing and non-agricultural uses of land assessed by the Jagir Commissioner has been assailed by the Government. The review order, subsequently passed by the Jagir Commissioner, does not deal with the two matters assailed in the appeal, but refers to other matters such as reduction of debt etc. Thus the appeal of the State Government stands and does not become infructuous. In support of this argument he cited two previous decisions of the Board of Revenue in the State vs. Ranjit Singh (No. 34/1960 Nagaur) decided on 28. 8. 1962, and the State vs. Maharaj Kumar Jaswant Singh (Appeal No. 13/1963 of Alwar district) decided on 30. 4. 1965. We have considered the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent and the reply given by the Government Advocate and have examined the two decisions cited by the learned Govt. Advocate. The counsel for the respondent Amar Singh conceded at the bar that the present Government appeal assailing the incomes from grazing and non agricultural uses of land did not form part of his client's review application- before the Jagir Commissioner. In view of this, it will appear that the previous decision of the Jagir Commissioner dated 28. 7. 1964 against which the Government has filed the present appeal and a cross-objection has been filed by the respondent stands unimpeached. The award by the Jagir Commissioner consists of assessment of various sources of income as provided in Schedule II of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952. Each source of income has to be separately assessed and it is only after the assessment is made that the gross income of the jagirdar is determined and then the compensation is calculated after making certain statutory deductions such as tribute and administrative charges. It is only upon these calculations that the final award is issued by the Jagir Commissioner. It will thus appear that the award passed by the Jagir Commissioner is clearly divisible in its various parts and each income is independent of the other. It is not necessary for an aggrieved party to assail all the incomes assessed by the Jagir Commissioner. He may choose to assail one against which he is aggrieved and another party may seek the review of the order by the Jagir Commissioner with regard to the other income and need not necessarily bring an appeal. This enabling provision permitting two parties to, seek two different remedies clearly finds a place in O. 47, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. In this case, Amar Singh respondent filed the review application with regard to the deduction of debt and the Government came in appeal assailing the assessment of income from the sources of grazing and non-agricultural uses of land. Thus the judgment in review on 8. 12. 1964 regarding debt deduction etc. does not, in any way effect the previous assessment made by the Jagir Commissioner in respect of grazing and non-agricultural uses of land. It, therefore, does not make the Government appeal infructuous nor does it make the cross-objection of the respondent Amar Singh futile. The two previous decisions of this Board cited by the Government Advocate and referred to above support the reply given by the Government Advocate, and uphold the principle of the divisibility of the award. The Jagir awards, therefore, substantially differ from a decree of a civil court relating to rent or possession of a property. In the latter case, if a review application modifies the decree effecting the rent or the possession, it certainly will make the entire appeal, previously filed before the appellate authority, infructuous and ineffective. In the present case, therefore, the State appeal and the cross-objection of the respondent do not become infructuous. The preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondent Amar Singh is thus over-ruled. We now proceed to dispose of the State appeal first and the cross-objection thereafter. In the appeal filed by the Government, the income from two sources, namely, grazing and non-agricultural uses of land, assessed by the Jagir Commissioner has been assailed. In both these cases the matter had already come up before the Board of Revenue and the case was remanded for re-determination of income. In compliance with the remand order by the Board of Revenue, the Jagir Commissioner has proceeded to redetermine the income from grazing. The Jagir Commissione has come to the conclusion that the jagirdar was entitled to an average of Rs. 1467. 98 as against the previous determination of Rs. 264. 64 on the same subject. Under non-agricultural uses of land the income from the previous assessment of Rs. 703. 88 has been raised to Rs. 1679. 07. The contention of the Government Advocate was that while assessing these incomes, the Jagir Commissioner has not explained the composition of these amounts assessed by him with reference to the various entries in the cash book. The bare perusal of the Jagir Commissioner's order would indicate that he has not taken care to show how he has arrived at these revised figures. He has not referred to the statement of accounts on which he seems to have placed reliance as far as assessment of income under the head non-agricultural uses of land is concerned. The order of the Jagir Commissioner being the order of the assessing authority must be self-contained and should clearly show how the figures under these two sources have been arrived at. The order of the Jagir Commissioner, therefore, is deficient on this ground and it is not intelligible. The counsel on behalf of the respondent also concedes that the Jagir Commissioner has not been able to furnish the necessary details to show the composition of these assessed amounts. As the first and the final court of appeal, it was our duty in the Board of Revenue to have finally disposed of this matter, but the counsel for the respondent was unable to help us in showing as to how these two assessed incomes were arrived at by the learned Jagir Commissioner. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to ask the Jagir Commissioner to re-write his judgment giving full details in the manner in which he had arrived at these two figures. In the cross-objection, filed by Shri Amar Singh, respondent, the ex-jagirdar, he has assailed the award on three grounds. Firstly, with regard to the grazing. The contention of the counsel for the respondent was that the amount of Rs. 165/-has been disallowed by the Jagir Commissioner under the head grazing on the ground that the same could be admissible to the respondent under the head non-agricultural uses of land, but this has been omitted. The Government Advocate also concedes that this matter may be re-examined by the Jagir Commissioner. The second ground on which the award has been assailed relates to the disallowance of the income from the sale of abadi land. The counsel for the respondent does not wish to press this ground of his cross-objection any further. We therefore, pass no orders on this matter. On the third ground, the counsel for the respondent has contended that the claimant, ex jagirdar, was entitled to an amount of Rs. 577. 75 for the income recovered by the Government from the Jagir land and payable to the jagirdar rateably under sec. 22 (l) (d) of the Jagir Act, on the basis of the tehsil report dated 11. 6. 1962. The Jagir Commissioner in his decision passed no order with regard to this payment, but the award shows that an amount of Rs. 6919 19 has been deducted for various reasons. The counsel for the respondent has only assailed the deduction of Rs. 1385. 38 under the head of rateable distribution. The bare perusal of the award would show that, in the first instance, the total of the deducted amount is wrong, and secondly, no explanation is given as to how this figure of deduction of Rs. 1385. 35 under sec. 22 (l) (d) of the Jagir Act was arrived at. In this respect, therefore, the order of the Jagir Commissioner surfers from a serious defect and calls for further enquiry. We, therefore, for the reasons stated above, accept the State Government's appeal and remand the case for re-writing the judgment with regard to the income from grazing and non-agricultural uses of land after hearing both the parties. Similarly, the cross-objection of Amar Singh, respondent, is also partly accepted and the case is remanded for further enquiry under the head grazing as well as under the deductions or payment of the amount under sec. 22 (1) (d) of the Jagir Act for the amount recovered during the year of resumption of the Jagir. The Jagir Commissioner should determine whether any amount is to be deducted from the claimant jagirdar or it is payable to him after considering the report of the tehsil and hearing both the parties. . ;