- (1.) THIS is a revision application filed against the order of the Collector, Tonk, dated 29-7-1964. The facts in brief are that the applicant Bhagwat Singh is a jagirdar of Duni which was resumed on 1-8-1955. The jagir consisted of 31 villages, 26 were located, in district Tonk and 5 in Jaipur. The final award was made on 4-10-1962 on a revenue income of Rs. 1,60,253,71. Government dues as stated in Form 10 amounting to Rs. 2,41,876. 55 were deducted- The maintenance holders got Rs. 3,71,500, and indent for bonds for Rs. 1,50,746/- was issued. These bonds were, however attached by the Collector Tonk. On a previous application filed in the Board of Revenue, it was ordered that bonds worth Rs. 50,000/- my be released if the applicant furnished necessary security. After the arguments in this revision had been heard, the applicant filed an application that even these bonds worth Rs. 50,000/-have not been released. Separate action has been ordered on that application. THIS revision is concerned only with the order of the Collector dated 29-7-1964, where under he had refused to hear objections raised by the applicant regarding the attachment of his bonds for satisfaction of the dues of the District Board. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that the dues against the jagir could only by recovered by the Jagir Commissioner and are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Revenue court. Under Section 34 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, only the amounts recoverable from a Jagirdar under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 22 and those determined in an order made under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall be deducted from the compensation payable to him. Under Section 22 (1) (e) all arrears of revenue, cesses or other dues in respect of any jagir land due from the Jagirdar for any period prior to the date of resumption including any sum due from him under clause (d) and all loans advanced by the Government or the Court of Wards to the Jagirdar are recoverable from his compensation. It is obvious that the Jagir Commissioner could not deduct dues of the District Board from the compensation payable to the jagirdar. But that would not mean that any right of recovery of the dues against the jagirdar lapsed. Any dues against the jagirdar not recoverable under Section 22 (1) (c) or 32 (2) would be obviously recoverable under any law for the time being in force. If they are recoverable under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the jurisdiction of the revenue courts would obviously not be excluded. Similarly, the dues which accrue after the resumption of the jagir would be recoverable under any law for the time being in force.
(2.) UNDER Section 70 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, which came into force on the 10th September, 1950, the assets of the District Board devolved on the Government. A notification was issued on the 10th September, 1959 transferring the assets of the District Board in the present case to the Collector, Tonic, who thereupon ordered that these dues were recoverable under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the procedure as laid down in Section 257-A would have to be followed. He accordingly refused to consider the objections raised against withholding the issue of the bonds unless the amount of the dues was deposited in protest as laid down under sec. 257-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The only point in revision which will have to be decided is whether the learned Collector passed the order without jurisdiction or committed a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. This will further boil down to whether the amount was recoverable under Section 256 of the Land Revenue Act, and if so, whether he had followed the proper procedure. Under Section 256 (b) of the Land Revenue Act, all sums of money payable to the State Government or to a department or an officer of the State Government or to a local authority on account of rates, duties, taxes, charges or other dues under any law or rule having the force of law, notwithstanding that such law or rule does not declare the same to be recoverable or realisable as an arrear of revenue or land revenue or rent or to be a demand or a public demand or to be recoverable or realisable as an arrear or a demand or a public demand can be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. As I have stated above, these dues were on account of arrears of cess imposed by the District Board on the applicant. Under Section 70 of the Rajasthan Pan-chayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, they became the assets of the State Government. Section 256 (b) is therefore clearly applicable in this case. As these dues became realisable by the Collector Tonk vide Government notification No. E. 9856/f. (38) LSG/a/59/ii dated the 10th September, 1959 much after the resumption of the jagir they were clearly recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The second point for determination was whether the Collector Tonk had followed the proper procedure as laid down under Section 257a of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. I find from the file that a regular application as envisaged in the said Section was duly sent by the Collector Tonk to the Collector Jaipur, giving all the necessary particulars. In my opinion, therefore, the Collector Tonk had proper jurisdiction in proceeding against the applicant under the Land Revenue Act and no material irregularity can be found in the procedure adopted by him. The learned counsel for the applicant laid great stress on the word ''payable' used in Section 25b (b ). He urged that before assuming jurisdiction, it was incumbent on the Collector to determine whether the amount was actually payable or not. It was also urged that the revisionary court should go into this question. Looking to the scheme of the Rajasthan Act No. 42 of 1960, which introduced Sections 256 to 257d for the recovery of miscellaneous revenue and other monies it is clear that the Collector can hear objections only when procedure laid down under Section 257 is complied with. Under the Public Demands Recovery Act, Sec. 8 laid down the submission of a petition denying liability, but these sections have absolutely taken away even that right of the defaulter. Under sec. 257-B, if the amount is paid under protest only then the Collector will forward the amount along with the protest to the officer or authority at whose instance proceedings were so started. It is understood that only at this stage the person or authority at whose instance proceedings were started will hear the protest and objections of the defaulter. Unless the amount is deposited in protest, the plain language of the section clearly says that the Collector is debarred from hearing objections of any kind. The revisionary court's jurisdiction is only, as stated above, limited to the determination whether the foundation lay for the Collector to assume jurisdiction to proceed for the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue, that is, whether the amount fell within the categories as mentioned in section 256 and whether proper procedure under section 257a was followed. The revisionary court cannot go into the question whether the amount was actually payable or not That will be a decision on merits and not one concerning jurisdiction of the revisionary court. For the reasons given above, I think the Collector had necessary jurisdiction to pass the order asking the defaulter to deposit the amount in protest. He has committed no material irregularity. It may, however, be stated that if the defaulter deposits the balance of the amount after taking into account the bonds that have been forfeited, it will obviously be the whole amount deposited and the defaulter will have the right to have his protest forwarded to the proper authority for determination of the objections taken therein. With these observations, I reject this revision application. . ;