- (1.) THROUGH this appeal, the Jagirdar seeks to attack the order of the learned Deputy Collector Jagir, Pali, dated 29. 1. 64 with regard to the compensation award for his jagir, Tawali Kalan. Mainly, there are three grounds of appeal. The Deputy Collector Jagir has assessed the rental income of the Jagir according to the settlement of Smt. year 2011, assuming that the Jagir was resumed on 12. 9. 56 and the settlement Parchas had been distributed on 10. 2. 56.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the Jagirdar is that the Jagir was actually resumed on 29. 10. 54 (Page 9 of the file) and the charge was taken by the Govt. on 24. 5. 55 (the letter from the Deputy Collector Jagir to the Revenue Secretary at Page 10 indicates the date of taking over as 14. 5. 55 ). It transpires that subsequently another notice was again received by the Jagirdar for the resumption of this Jagir when the Govt. decided to resume the Jagirs having an annual rental income of Rs. 1,000/- or above. On receipt of this notice, the Jagirdar reported that his Jagir had already been resumed and the Patwari was recovering the Bigori. THE Tehsildar reported accordingly vide his letter dated 24. 10. 56 (Page 19 of the file ). THEreupon, the Deputy Collector Jagir ordered that the second notice had been issued under a misunderstanding. THE same was, therefore, directed to be cancelled and the Jagir was deemed to have been resumed on 29. 10. 54. This letter of the Deputy Collector Jagir is dated 16/20. 11. 56 and may be found at Page 20 of the file. THE Jagirdar claims that the Jagir having thus been resumed on 29. 10. 54, he is entitled to compensation on the basis of the rental income assessed according to the settlement of St, year 1999. THE Deputy Collector, Jagir, has not accepted this contention and has allowed him rental income on the basis of the settlement of St. year 2011. One of the grounds taken by him is that the period of settlement of the earlier settlement was 10 years which expired in Smt. year 2008 and the second settlement had been commenced before the expiry of the period of the first settlement. It was, therefore, not correct to assess the income on the basis of the earlier settlement. From the perusal of the order of the Deputy Collector Jagir, it is not clear when exactly the subsequent settlement became effective. This, to our mind is very relevant for the adjudication of this issue. If the second settlement became effective before the resumption of this Jagir, on 29. 10. 54, the Jagirdar has no case whatsoever. If, however, the second settlement became effective on a subsequent date, the contention of the Jagirdar that the Jagir was resumed on 29. 10. 54 and not on 12. 9. 56 becomes pertinent. The learned Deputy Collector Jagir has rejected the contention of the Jagirdar that the Jagir was resumed on 29. 10. 54 for two reasons. In the first place, he has argued that the Jagirdar claims the earlier date of resumption because in that case he would be entitled to a higher rate of compensation. Secondly, he has also referred to certain receipts purporting to have been issued in August 1954. According to him, these receipts were actually issued in May 1956 as it was found that the date of August 1954 was endorsed by making an over-writing and by deleting the dates of May, 1956. From this, the learned Deputy Collector Jagir arrived at the conclusion that the Jagir had not been resumed until May 1956. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Jagirdar has drawn our attention to the unambiguous letter of the Deputy Collector jagir dated 16/20. 11. 56. He has also drawn our attention to the notice of resumption dated 19. 4. 55 (Page 9 of the file) stating that this Jagir was resumed on 20. 10. 54. As stated above, on the file there is also a letter from the Deputy Collector Jagir dated 19. 5. 55 to the Revenue Secretary Jaipur stating that this Jagir was resumed on 14. 5. 55. There is also a letter dated 25. 5. 55 from the Deputy Collector Jagir to the Tehsildar Pali asking him to direct the patwari to commence recovery on the basis of the Pattas issued to the tenants and to prepare the record with the help of the Settlement Department at the cost of the Jagirdar (Page 12 of the file ). To our mind, the considerations which have weighed with the learned Deputy Collector Jagir are without any substance. That the quantum of compensation due to the Jagirdar will increase if the date of resumption is assumed to be 29. 10. 54, has no relevance in the present context. The Jagirdar is entitled to receive whatever may be admissible to him under the law. Whether the compensation is going to be high or low should not have influenced the mind of the lower court. Similarly, the over-writings detected on the receipts which are seven in number also should not have been allowed to outweigh the preponderant evidence on record indicating to the date of resumption to be 29. 10. 54. If these receipts were found to have been fabricated, they could be rejected while calculating the assessment. The question of determination of the date of resumption must be adjudged independently of the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Jagirdar. As stated above, the evidence on record unambiguously points to the conclusion that the Jagir was resumed on 29. 10. 54 and in consequence of the same the Patwari was ordered to make recoveries from the tenants on the basis of the Pattas thereafter. It is pertinent to note that the the second notice was admitted by the Dy. Collector Jagir to have been issued under a misunderstanding and was, therefore, eventually withdrawn. In the face of this categorical evidence, we cannot uphold the finding of the Deputy Collector Jagir that the Jagir was resumed on 12. 9. 56. This being the case the determination of the date on which the second settlement became effective assumes relevance. If the second settlement became effective before 29. 10. 54, the Jagirdar is entitled to compensation according to the new rates, otherwise he is entitled to compensation according to the old rates. The learned counsel for the State has drawn our attention to the amended rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules and has argued that even if the date of resumption is assumed to be 29. 10. 54, this rule will come into play and revised rates will be attracted. As the final award was issued on 29. 1. 64, after the amendment of Rule 9. This argument cannot stand a moment's scrutiny as the amended Rule 9 applies only to those Jagirs which fall under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act viz. the Jagirs which were not settled at the time of resumption. The present Jagir does not fall under this category and in our opinion therefore, it will not attract the amended Rule 9. This argument of the learned counsel for the State is, therefore, without any substance. It has also been argued by the learned Government Advocate that the notice resuming the Jagir on 12. 9. 55 was issued under sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act by the State Government. The same could not, therefore, be withdrawn by the Deputy Collector Jagir. A perusal of the Notification issued by the State Government in respect of the Jagir Lands having annual rental income of Rs. 1,000/- or over would show that it was issued in very general terms. It also proceeds to say that this Notification shall not apply to such Jagir lands for the resumption of which the Notifications have already been issued. Following this Notification, individual notices were issued to the jagirdars by the Collectors acting as the Agents of the Government. If subsequently a Collector found that he had wrongly interpreted the Notification of the ! Government and had issued a notice by mistake, we are of the opinion that he was himself competent to withdraw the same. Thus we find no force in this argument of the learned Govt. Advocate and accept the appeal of the Jagirdar in respect of this point. The case will now be remanded to the Deputy Collector Jagir for re-enquiry with regard to the prevailing rates on the date of resumption and for redetermining the compensation due to the Jagirdar on this account in accordance with the law and the observations made above. The second contention of the learned counsel for the Jagirdar is that the village Chhora has been excluded from the above Jagir, although according to the settlement record this village forms part of the Jagir. No settlement record has, however, been produced before us. The only document which had been brought to our notice in this connection is the affidavit of the main Jagirdar which is at Page 76 of the file. The main Jagirdar has stated in this affidavit that village Chhora had been given by his father to his younger brother, Narain Singh, but the same was resumed by mistake along with his Jagir Devli. He, further, proceeds to say that he did not claim any compensation for this village while submitting his claim. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has argued that it does not follow necessarily as a corollary from this affidavit that this was a sub-grant created in favour of the Jagirdar. The affidavit shows prima facie that the village was included in the parent Jagir. It is for the appellant to establish that a sub-grant was created in his favour in the normal course of management and not in anticipation of the resumption of Jagir lands as laid down in Sec. 25a of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act and, further, that he was duly in receipt of the income from this village. The Jagirdar has not produced any Patta or any other record in support of his contention. We, therefore, see no reason to uphold this contention of the Jagirdar and hereby reject his claim with regard to the village Chhora.
(3.) THE third point raised by the learned counsel for the Jagirdar is in respect of the deductions. It is stated that the Jagirdar had challenged the deductions proposed to be made through form 10. THE Deputy Collector Jagir, however, held no enquiry as he was bound to do in view of the rule laid down in Chandra Kant Rao vs. State of Rajasthan (1963 RLW 111 ). It has been argued that if the date of resumption is held to be 29. 10. 54, the basic year will be St. year 2010 and the deductions which relates to St. years 2012 and 2013 will become untenable. This argument has not been controverted by the learned Government Advocate. We are, therefore, inclined to accept this appeal so far as this ground is concerned. The result of the foregoing discussion is that this appeal is partly accepted and the case is remanded to the learned Deputy Collector Jagir for fresh enquiry and redetermination of the compensation in respect of this Jagir in accordance with the law and the observations made above. .;