- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the final award made by the Additional Jagir Commissioner on 30. 3. 1960, in regard to the resumed jagir of the appellant.
(2.) THE first ground taken is that in computing the rental income from the jagir the fixed amount received from tenants viz. Rs. 286/13/9 should have been taken into account and not the amount calculated according to the settled rate. A Full Bench of this Board has held in R. R. D. 1966 page 54 (Shiv Narain vs. State of Rajasthan) that in the cases of jagirs which were resumed before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the rent agreed to between the landholder and tenant or the settled rate of rent would apply subject to the then existing law, if any, regulating the rent. This means that in such cases the agreed rent would prevail subject to the ceiling of rent laid down by the law regarding rents in force for the time being. THE learned Additional Jagir Commissioner could not have been aware of this ruling and he has decided the case on a basis contrary to the principle laid down by the Board in Full Bench. In holding that the settled rate would apply in the case of this jagir which was resumed before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, it has not been examined whether the settled rate was applicable to the holdings in question in the relevant year. From the record before us we cannot determine whether the holdings in question were subject to the settled rate or not. THE provisions of the Marwar law relating to rents have also not been examined by the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner. THE case, therefore, needs to be remanded on this point for a further enquiry. The second objection taken by the appellant is with regard to the income from Muafi Chakrana. It was the Jagirdar's claim that he had resumed the sub-grants made by him before the basic year and that in the basic year he was receiving rents from the lands affected. The learned Additional Jagir Commissioner while conceding that if the sub-grants had been resumed before the basic year the jagirdar's claim would have been admissible, he has observed that this was not borne out by the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to page 8 of File B, which bears an endorsement by the Tehsildar that the payment of rent by the former sub-grantees is established. The finding of the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner is in conflict with this endorsement. The matter needs therefore being further investigated. The case deserves to be remanded on this point also for further enquiry, so that the jagirdar may have an opportunity of showing that the sub-grants had in fact been resumed before the basic year and converted into tenancy holdings. The third ground taken in the appeal is that income from sale of land has been determined without giving any reasoning. The appellant had claimed an income of Rs. 3417/- in regard to the sale of abadi land whereas an amount of Rs. 1836/- was actually allowed. No reasoning is available from the order of the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner as to how the amount allowed was arrived at. The order of the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner also does not show whether he had excluded such transactions of sale of abadi land which required to be compulsory registered under the law then in force, and were not so registered. There is need for further enquiry on this point also. The appellant is not pressing the point that income from sale of agricultural land should have been allowed. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant has urged that before making a deduction of Rs. 3,900/- from the amount of compensation as the dues payable to the Devasthan Department, the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner has not given any opportunity to the appellant to show that he was entitled to debt reduction and that the amount due to the Devasthan Department was actually smaller than the amount, deducted. In his order the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner says that there was a certificate concerning the Devasthan dues, but we have not been able to trace this certificate in the record. The jagirdar should have been allowed an opportunity to show that the amount payable by him was smaller than the amount demanded of him and further that he was entitled to have debt reduction. The case therefore needs being remanded for further enquiry in this matter as well. The result is that we accept this appeal and remand the case to the learned Jagir Commissioner, with the direction that a fresh award be made after holding an enquiry on the points specified in this order. . ;