- (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) FOR the purposes of the decision of this writ petition, it may be taken as not in dispute that Thakur Sobhagsinghji of Jakhora, district Jhunjhunu had assigned village Bhinvsar alias Pipal ka-Bas in District Jhunjhunu to his wife for her maintenance in the year 1930. Settlement operations of the area in which this village is situate were carried on by the former Jaipur State, but on there being objection to the settlement by the Jagirdars, the Government of the former Jaipur state issued the following notification on 14th June, 1945 : - "the Government are further pleased to make the following orders regarding the various grievances placed before the committee. Settlement: - (5) As the villages (46 in number) and plots held in Bhog, Udak, Muafi etc. in the Panchpana area have not yet been settled, the question of introducing settlement will be taken up at an early date. Bona fide havalas, which existed at the time of the introduction of settlement, will for the present be excluded from settlement but the havalas which the Panchpana sardars created after the introduction of settlement or which may be created hereafter will not be excluded from the settlement" It may be pointed out that village Bhivnsar was in the Panchapana area and was covered by the aboves notification. Settlement operations in the Panchpana area proceeded and rent rates were determined for that area and even 'katcha' parchas settling the rent on each holding were issued to the tenants in village Bhinvsar. It appears that the Jagirdar took objection to this on the ground that as village Bhinvsar was held in 'khangi' (maintenance) by the wife of the Jagirdar, Thakurani Bikawatji, the parchas may be cancelled. The matter went up to the Board of Revenue of the former Jaipur State and it was decided by the Board of Revenue on the 6th May, 1947 that the "objections filed by the Thikana be allowed; that village Bhimsar alias Pipal-ka-bas be recorded in the havala of Thakurani Bikawaiji of Thakur Sobhagsinghji of Jakhora; and that the settlement Parchas distributed to the tenants of this village be treated as cancelled subject to the understanding that arrears of rent would be realized. . . . . . . . . When the Jagir of Thakur Sobhag Singh of Jakhora was resumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (here-in-after called the Act village Bhinvsar alias Pipal-ka-bas was also resumed. It is sought to be argued that the said village could not have been resumed along with Jokhara as it was a separate jagir. This point was not specifically raised in this form before the Revenue Board. Even in the writ petition it is stated in para 6 that the State had resumed the petitioner's Jagir (village Bhimsar alias Pipal-ka-bas) and taken over charge from the petitioner of her said Jagir on the 10th September, 1955. This point cannot therefore be allowed to be taken up at the time of hearing of the writ petition. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioners duly filed her claim for compensation and also raised certain objections that her husband also filed his claim for the entire Jagir of Jakhora including village Bhimsar alias pipal-ka-bas. The Jagir Commissioner by his judgment dated the 20th August, 1956 held that the petitioner was a Jagirdar of village Bhimsar and she alone was entitled to receive compensation for that village and Thakur Sobhagsingh's claim for compensation for that village was rejected. Thakur Sobhagsingh filed an appeal to the Rajasthan Board of Revenue, but his appeal was dismissed by the Board on the 23rd January, 1957. Sobhagsingh then filed a writ petition in this court which was dismissed summarily. On the petitioner's claim for compensation the Deputy Collector (Jagir) gave his provisional award under the provisions of the Act on the 11th May, 1957. On the 14th May, the petitioner submitted objections against the provisional award to the Jagir Commissioner. The Deputy Collector (Jagir) gave final award on the 11th of June, 1957. In this award the rental income from five holdings in the said village was calculated at Rs. 93. 1. 0 only, while according to the petitioner, the rental income was actually Rs. 261. 8. 0. An appeal was filed by the petitioner on the 21st of September, 1957, against the final award to the Board of Revenue. This appeal was ultimately decided by the Board of Revenue on the 5th December, 1960. One of the contentions raised before the Board of Revenue which is the only contention material for the purpose of this writ petition, was that village Bhimsar alias Pipal-ka-bas was not a settled village, and, as such, compensation with regard to that village could not be calculated by applying the provisions contained in section 6 of the Act, but should have been calculated by applying section 7 of the Act. This contention was negatived by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has challenged this finding of the Board of Revenue in this writ petition, and it is prayed that the order of the Board of Revenue be quashed and the Board of Revenue be directed to treat village Bhimsar alias Pipal-ka-bas as an unsettled village and decide the appeal afresh on that basis. The facts and the reasoning for the decision have been given by the Board of Revenue in its order which is the speaking order. The Board of Revenue examined the definition of the word "settled" as given in section 2 (9) of the Act prior to its amendment before the 14th December, 1957 and after its amendment by the Rajasthan Act (Act No. 36 of 1955 ). Prior to the amendment, 'settled village' was defined as follows: - "settled village" means a village in which the rents payable by tenants have been assessed as a result of settlement operations. " After the amendment, the word "settled" has been defined as follows: - (n) "settled" when used with reference to a village or any other area, means the village or other area to which the rent rates determined during settlement operations have been made applicable whether prospectively or retrospectively and the whole of such village or other area shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and the rules and others made thereunder, to be so settled if such rates have been made so application to not less than three fourth of such village or other area. " The Board of Revenue took the view that rent rates had been determined during the settlement operations for this village when the settlement operations were under taken for the area in which this village was situated by the former State of Jaipur. Not only this, but even the 'parchas' were issued to the tenants in the village determining rent for each holding in the village, but the issue of these parchas was held by the Board of Revenue, Jaipur state, to be illegal. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that in spite of the fact that the issuing of 'parchas' has been held illegal, it cannot be said that the village was not settled according to the definition of this term given in the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a village cannot be said to be a settled village unless rent has been determined for each holding in that village during the settlement operations. His contention is that in order that a village may be taken as a settled village, the general determination of the rent rates with respect to the area is not sufficient, but there must be specific determination for rent for each holding. This argument did not find favour with the Board of Revenue as in its view, such meaning cannot be given to a settled village. We have carefully considered this point. In our opinion, under the definition of the settled village or 'settled' given in the Act before or after its amendment by Act No. 36 of 1955, a village shall be treated to be a settled village as soon as rent rates have been determined during the settlement operations for the area in which the village is situate, even though rent has not been determined for each holding. It is well known that in carrying on settlement operations, the preliminary steps are the formation of assessment circles, classification of soil and then fixing rent rates for each class of soil in a particular assessment circle. These rent rates are got sanctioned from the highest authority. It is after this sanction has been granted by the highest authority that the rent rates become applicable to a particular area. Then follows another step in the settlement operations and that is determination or settling of rent of each tenant after hearing objections. Now under the definition of 'settled village', a village is deemed to be settled when rent rates determined during the settlement operations have been made applicable. The definition does not say that rent has been determined or settled for each holdings. It only makes reference to the determination of rent rates and making them applicable to a village. Similar is the definition of the word "settled" under the Act after its amendment by Act No. 36 of 1955. We do not find that the Board of Revenue has committed any mistake of law in giving this interpretation to the word "settled" in section 2 (9) (n) of the Act. In this view of the matter the writ petition has got no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;