- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 21-6-62 in claim No. F. (26)JC/bmr. The learned Government Advocate has attacked the impugned order only with regard to the income from grazing fee and non-agricultural uses of land. His contention is that such income could have been granted only on the basis of schedule 11 attached to the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, whereas the learned Jagir Commissioner has erred in not following the said provisions of law and has evolved new formula by which he has allowed one third income from grazing fee and non-agricultural uses of land claimed by the Jagirdar. He has argued that such formula has no legal sanctity and cannot be introduced by the learned Jagir Commissioner. He has therefore urged that the appeal may be accepted and the case may be remanded to the Jagir Commissioner for determining the income from grazing and non-agricultural uses of land as per provisions of the Jagir Act.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has conceded that the learned Jagir Commissioner has not followed the provisions of the Jagir Act in determining the income from grazing and non-agricultural uses of land. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The learned Jagir Commissioner has evolved a new formula of his own for determining the income from grazing and non-agricultural uses of land and has not applied the provisions of the Jagir Act for the same. We, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 21-6-62 to the extent of the income from grazing fee and non-agricultural uses of land, and remand the case to him for redetermining the above incomes in light of the observations made above according to law. Per Shri Madhok - I have had the benefit of going through the order that my learned colleague, Shri Balwant Singh, proposes to make. However, I respectfully differ from the view taken by him. I am of the opinion that if the Jagir Commiss-sioner finds the claim made by the jagirdar in the matter of income from non-agricultural uses of land and grazing fees to be unsupported by reliable account produced by the jagirdar, it is for the Jagir Commissioner to make a fair determination in the light of his own experience. This is precisely what has been done by the learned Jagir Commissioner. Whereas the jagirdar claimed income on this count at the average rate of Rs. 3. 19 per bigha, the Jagir Commissioner allowed Rs. 1/-per bigha. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I consider that the determination by the Jagir Commissioner cannot be assailed. I am, therefore, not in favour of acceptance of the appeal, but would rather opine for its rejection. On reference per Hooja - This is an appeal against the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 21-6-1962, in claim No. F. (26) JC/bmr filed by the State under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act. The appeal was heard by a D. B. of this Board consisting of Shri Balwant Singh and Shri R. K. Madhok. As there was a difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Members, the appeal has been referred to me for hearing by the learned Chairman. I have heard the arguments of the counsel for both the sides and have had the benefit of perusing the judgments recorded by the Hon'ble Members. The contention relates to the income from grazing fee and non-agricultural uses of land. The learned Govt. Advocate has attacked the impugned order on the ground that such income could have been allowed only on the basis of Schedule II attached to the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act whereas the learned Jagir Commissioner has evolved a new formula for the assessment of this income. It is his contention that such a formula has no legal sanctity. Shri Balwant Singh accepted this contention and held that the order of the learned Jagir Commissioner was not maintainable. On the other hand, Shri R. N. Madhok differed with this view. In his opinion, the Jagir Commissioner finds the claim made by the Jagirdar in the matter of income from non-agricultural uses of land and grazing fees to be unsupported by reliable accounts produced by the Jagirdar, it is for the Jagir Commissioner to make a fair determination in the light of his own experience. In this case, the Jagirdar claimed income at the average rate of Rs. 3. 19 per bigha, whereas the Jagir Commissioner allowed Rs. 1/- per bigha on an ad hoc basis. Shri R. N. Madhok held that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the determination by the Jagir Commissioner could not be assailed. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the view of Shri R. N. Madhok and relies on the Rule laid down in Bhanupratap Singh vs. State (1904 RRD 110 ). He has particularly referred to para 14 wherein the learned Judges have elaborated upon the nature of enquiry which the Jagir Commissioner has to make under the Act in order to determine the matter of compensation. They have referred to sec. 32 which says that the Commissioner shall make such enquiry as he deems necessary. " Commenting upon this, the learned Judges have observed that this expression is by no means rigid and is quite flexible. In other words, it means that the Jagir Commissioner has been given a discretion to embark upon an enquiry which may suit the requirements of a case before him and it would be going too far to hold that such an enquiry has to be made in accordance with the the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act. The learned Judges, therefore, held that sec. 32 clearly prescribes that the enquiry to be made by the Jagir Commissioner must be such as he deems necessary" in the particular circumstances of the case before him. He is, therefore, free to hold the enquiry to suit the exigencies of the particular case before him. It was, however, further observed that as in the case of every enquiry before a tribunal dealing with quasi-judicial matters, what is necessary is that the enquiry must conform to the broad requirements of justice, equity and good conscience. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that in making the assessment, the learned Jagir Commissioner has not held any enquiry. He has merely made an ad hoc assessment and has followed the rule of thumb, stating that in several such cases the rate of Rs. 1/- per bigha has been allowed in the past. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that this procedure is not in accordance with the law and cannot fall within the compass of an enquiry as contemplated under sec. 32. As held by the learned Judges in the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh, the learned Jagir Commissioner was required to make an enquiry into the matter as he found that the records produced by the respondent were not raliable. Under the law, as interpreted in the above authority, he has sufficient flexibility to determine the nature of the enquiry which he deemed necessary, but this cannot be interpreted to mean that he can apply the rule of thumb and make an ad hoc assessment. This contention must prevail. No doubt, the manner of enquiry is left to the discretion of the Jagir Commissioner. But such an enquiry must conform to the broad requirements of justice, equity and good conscience. This rules out the application of the rule of thumb and the adoption of an ad hoc formula. In this connection, my attention has been drawn to the view taken in State of Rajasthan vs. Dalpatsingh (1964 RRD35), wherein it was held that the evolution of a formula is entirely unmaintainable as there is no sanction for it under the law and therefore the Jagir Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in trying to evolve a formula to arrive at the amount that he considered should be allowed for the purposes of compensation. The same view was taken in Jai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1963 RRD 289 ). It was held therein that the assessment made by the learned Jagir Commissioner on ad hoc basis was not provided in law. It was held that what was required to be done by the Jagir Commissioner was to examine the evidence on record and to come to a finding in accordance with the law based on such record. The same view taken in the State of Rajasthan vs. Kesar Singh (1964 KRD 7), wherein it was held that assessment made on ad hoc rates was not based on any law and it was directed that a proper finding should be reached on the basis of a judicial examination of the record and evidence produced by the parties. It will be seen that these authorities are not, in any way, in conflict with the rule laid down in the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh. Ail that is stated is that there is no provision in law for making an ad hoc assessment. The assessment should be based on the strength of the record and the evidence produced by the Jagirdar. While doing so, the Jagir Commissioner may embark upon such enquiry as he deems fit and determine the assessment on the basis of the result of his enquiry. The law does not at any rate, provide for an ad hoc assessment since the application of the rule of thumb is not the same thing as holding an enquiry, under any circumstances. In the result, therefore, I find myself in agreement with the view expressed by Shri Balwant Singh and I am of the opinion that this appeal should be accepted, so far as it relates to the income from grazing fee and non agricultural uses of land and the case should be remanded to the learned Jagir Commissioner for redetermining the same in accordance with the law and in the light of the observations made above. .;