- (1.) THE learned Government Advocate has brought this appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 against the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 21. 10. 64 on the ground that the Jagir was unsettled during the basic year Smt. 2010 and although the learned Collector, Sikar had issued the prescribed notices on 1. 3. 56, the respondent had not cared to submit the required details within the specified time. It is averred that the Jagir was subsequently settled before the final award was made and as such the rental income should have been assessed in accordance with the amended R. 9 of the Rules framed under the Jagir Act. It is contended that the learned Jagir Commissioner has made the assessment in contravention of the provisions of secs. 5, 6 and 7.
(2.) IN reply, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28. 4. 60 remanding the case to the Jagir Commissioner with the direction that the rental income of this Jagir should be redetermined in accordance with the provisions of sec. 7 of the Jagir Act and the Rules 3 to 9 made thereunder as the Jagir Guhala was unsettled on the date of resumption. It is contended that the amended R. 9 would come into play only if the case fell within the orbit of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 7 and not otherwise. A perusal of the amendment supports this contention. For facility of reference, R. 9 as amended may be reproduced below - 9. "hearing of objection and final determination by Collector - The Collector shall, upon completion of the enquiry or, in case the enquiry has been made by a subordinate officer, after considering the findings submitted under R. 7 and hearing the Jagirdar concerned and the representative of the Government with respect thereto as well as with respect to any objections lodged under R. 8, and after such further enquiry, if any, as he may think necessary determine the amount of rental income under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 7 of the Act. If in any of the circumstances mentioned in the said sub-section of the said Section, if the Jagir land has been settled after the date of resumption, but before the determination of compensation the rental income shall be determined on the basis of the rent fixed during such settlement. " The learned Government Advocate concedes this point. We would have proceeded to examine whether in the circumstances of the case the amended R. 9 would come into play or not, but in the absence of the assessment record, we are not able to examine this issue. It is clear that the amended R. 9 will apply only if sub-sec. (3) of sec. 7 is attracted. Sub-sec. (3) empowers the Collector to determine the rental income in respect of the Jagir lands in villages which are not settled if (a) the Jagirdar fails to furnish the statement required under sub-sec. (1) in respect of his Jagir lands or (b) where the Collector had reason to believe that in any such statement, the jagirdar has concealed any rental income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. Unless any one of these two conditions is satisfied, this sub-sec. is not attracted. As stated above, this is a matter which can be determined only by reference to the assessment file. Under the circumstances, we accept this appeal and remit the case to the learned Jagir Commissioner for redetermination of the award in accordance with the law and in the light of the observations made above. Cross objections have also been filed by the respondent in this case. In view of our findings regarding the application of the amendment to R. 9 as stated above, the learned counsel for the respondent does not press the first objection. He, however, contends that the deductions which have been ordered to be made from the award are pre-mature as the matter is still pending before the Collector, Sikar. His contention is that certain sums are due to the Jagirdar and they should have been adjusted while making the deductions. The learned Government Advocate has no objection if the lower court is asked to re-examine this matter as well. In the result, therefore, we partly accept the cross objection as well and remit the case to the lower court for re-enquiry and redetermination of the award in the light of the observations made above. .;