- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned Deputy Collector Jagir, Nagaur, dated 19-5-65, whereby he reviewed the final award given vide his order dated 20-10-64. By the impugned order, the learned Deputy Collector, Jagir, altered the date of resumption from 15-9-57 as determined in the final award dated 20-10-64 to 29-10-64, considering the estate to be a joint one.
(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Government Advocate that the question relating to the date of resumption falls within the jurisdiction of the State Govt. and this Board is not competent to examine this question. This objection has been repelled by the learned counsel for the appellants by arguing that if the Deputy Collector Jagir could alter the date, it would be within the province of the Board of Revenue to examine the propriety of his order. It has been pointed out by him that originally by his order dated 1-6-64, the Dy. Collector Jagir had fixed the date to be 1-7-58, but had subsequently, altered it to 15-9-57 while making the final award. It transpires that thereafter following a report by the Accounts Officer to the effect that the date of resumption should have been determined as 1-1-55, a reference was made by the Deputy Collector Jagir to the Jagir Commissioner and the date was altered to 29-10-54 on the basis of the reply received from the Jagir Commissioner. In this context, we have examined the provisions of Sec. 21. There is no doubt that any order passed under Sec. 21 is not appealable under Sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. Under Sec. 21, the State Govt. is empowered by Notification in the Rajasthan Gazette to appoint a date for the resumption of any class of Jagir and different dates maybe appointed for different classes of Jagir lands. It, further, provides that the Govt. may by Notification in the Rajasthan Gazette vary any date appointed under this Section at any time before such date and that the date finally appointed under this Section in relation to the resumption of any Jagir lands shall be referred to as the date of resumption of those Jagir lands. Now a plain reading of this Section clearly shows that the resumption of Jagirs has to be made by the Govt. category wise and the Govt. simply appoints the dates for the resumption of various categories of Jagir lands. Such orders are not appealable. A question may arise as to under which category a particular Jagir falls. This question naturally has to be determined by the Collector operating under rule 21 and if a dispute arises, the matter has to be determined by the authorities entrusted with the implementation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act. A similar objection was raised by the learned counsel for the Jagirdar in State of Rajasthan vs. Ramsingh (Appeal No. 7/63/kota) before our bench and we held that the action of the Jagir Commissioner in revising the date of resumption according to the income of the Jagir lay in the domain of implementing the Govt. orders and could not be subjected to any serious objection. So far as the Govt. is concerned, it appoints the dates for the resumption of Jagirs failing in various categories but whether or not a certain Jagir falls in a particular category is a question of fact and has to be determined by the authorities implementing the Govt. orders and any decision made in respect of such a question of fact certainly would attract the jurisdiction of this Board if it is challenged by an aggrieved party. Under the circumstances, we reject this preliminary objection. Now as regards the merits of the first case the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Dy. Collector Jagir has ignored the provision of O. 47 r. 1 C. P. C. in proceeding to review his earlier order. It is his contention that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order nor did the earlier order suffer from any error relating to the interpretation of law. It is argued by him that an error which requires further investigation cannot be deemed to be an error of law. His further contention is that if the State Govt. had felt aggrieved by the order dated 20-10-64, it should have filed an appeal. As stated above, he has also brought to our notice the circumstances in which the Deputy Collector Jagir proceeded to review his order and his contention is that this review cannot be described as suo-moto review. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Advocate, it would be necessary for the adjudication of this dispute to examine the nature of the error rectified by the learned Deputy Collector Jagir. Originally, the learned Deputy Collector Jagir had fixed the date of resumption as 15-9-57 holding the Jagirs to be separately held by the co-sharers, but on a reference being made to the Jagir Commissioner, he was advised that if no physical division had taken place, the date of resumption would be calculated on the basis of the entire income of the Jagir as a whole, although there may be several recorded share holders entitled to separate shares in the Jagir. In this connection, a reference was made by the learned counsel for the Jagir-dar to the definition of Jagirdar as given in Sec. 2 (g ). Under this section, Jagirdar means any person recognised as a Jagirdar under any existing Jagir law and includes a grantee of Jagir land from a Jagirdar. It is his contention that if a sub grantee is a Jagirdar, on the same analogy a co-sharer should also be deemed to be a Jagirdar even if his share has not been demarcated by metes and bounds since his specific share in the Jagir stands recorded. We agree with the learned Govt. Advocate that this contention cannot bear weight, in view of the provisions of Sec. 29 according to which any co-sharer of a Jagirdar who, under any existing Jagir law, is entitled to receive any share out of the income of any jagir land shall be paid such amount every year from the instalment of compensation and rehabilitation grant payable under this Act as bears to the total compensation and rehabilitation grant the same proportion which his share of the income of the jagir land bears to the total income of the Jagir land. A perusal of this section would show that the intendment of the Legislature was not to treat the co-sharers as separate Jagirdars. They were only held entitled to receive proportionate shares out of the total compensation of the Jagir and rehabilitation grant payable in respect of the Jagir in accordance with the proportion of their shares. A reference may also be made to the First Schedule which enumerates the various classes or tenures of state grants which are covered by the terms Jagir land as occurring in Sec. 2 (g) of the Jagirs Act and may be admissible as sub-grants. Certainly, co-sharers cannot be considered to fall in this category and it would be within the province of a Deputy Collector Jagir if he subsequently found that he had fallen into an error in determining the category of a particular Jagir, to rectify his mistake suo-moto as it was brought to his notice by his office as provided in Sec. 40a of the aforesaid Act. The result of the foregoing discussion is that we reject this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Now as regards the category in which this Jagir falls, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to a report from the Tehsildar according to which the income of the Jagir before 15-10-55. The learned Dy. Collector Jagir has determined the date of resumption to be 29-10-54 on the ground that the income of this Jagir was Rs. 2008 14 viz. over Rs. 2,000/-, but as the income on 15-10 55 was Rs. 1812. 76, the learned Govt. Advocate concedes that this Jagir would be attracted by Notification No. F. 4 (388)/rev. 1/53, dated 17-12-54 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IB dated 18-12-54 at Page 600. According to this Notification, the date of resumption shall be 1-1-55. In the result, therefore, we accept this appeal to this extent and set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case for redetermination of compensation admissible to the Jagirdar on the basis of the date of resumption being 1-1-55. . ;