- (1.) THE appellant Ranjeetsingh has filed this appeal against the award passed by the Additional Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 5. 4. 1961. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant's Jagir was resumed on 15. 8. 1954 as a settled jagir. THE appellant filed a claim for compensation of his resumed jagir on the basis of the settled rates then prevailing and claimed other income. It is stated that after the resumption the Government revised the settled rent rates of this jagir village vide their order dated 7. 7. 1956 and these rates were made applicable from Smt. year 2008. THE Jagir Commissioner by the impugned award assessed the rental income of the jagir at the revised rate to the appellant. But as regards the other income the Additional Jagir Commissioner made no changes in the previously assessed income when the case was remanded back to him; hence this appeal.
(2.) THE counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. His first contention was that this jagir at the time of resumption was a settled jagir and the income as entered in the record of right in the basic year should have been allowed to the appellant and not the revised or modified rent rates subsequently introduced. His second contention was that this case was remanded by the Board of Revenue for fresh orders with regard to other incomes. THE Addl, Jagir Commissioner without according any reason and without discussing the evidence on record merely upheld his previous order. In the first judgment the Addl. Jagir Commissioner wrongly attributed the matter to over-writing of the books of account by the appellant and applied the provisions of sec. 34 of the Evidence Act, which in view of the decision of the High Court in Dudu's case is not to be taken into account. He therefore, pleaded that the Addl. Jagir Commissioner be directed to pass fresh orders on proper appreciation of evidence with regard to other income. I now take up the first contention of the counsel for the appellant. THE counsel in support of his argument cited the following rulings: (1) Nanak Chand vs. Board of Revenue U. P. reported in R. D. 1955 page 165. (2) Gokaran Singh vs. Ranjeetsingh U. P. reported in R. D. 1955 page 314. (3) Amba Prasad vs. Mahboobali Shah reported in A. I. R. 1955 Supreme Court page 54. to support his contention that the Court could give statutory effect to the entry in the record of right on the relevant date and subsequent change will have no effect. THE reply given by the Government Advocate was that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rate Act 1955 came into force on 9. 4. 1955. It was revived by the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates (Revival Act 1956 which came into force from 20. 5. 1956) and by virtue of cl. 9 of the aforesaid Acts the Government was authorised to validate modified rent rates previously sanctioned and other connected matters and further directed that legality of these matters shall not be questioned. He further stated that the rules cited by the counsel for the appellant do not apply to the present case. Besides this jagir was settled and according to the definition of 'settled' as provided in the Jagir Act, the rent rates could be made applicable whether prospectively or retrospectively. We have considered the arguments advanced on the first contention by the counsel and examined the relevant law. It is an admitted fact that this jagir was resumed in 1954 and was a settled jagir within the meaning of the Jagir Act i. e. cash rent rates were made applicable to this jagir in Smt. 2008. It is these very rent rates that was sought to be modified by the Government vide their order dated 27. 7. 1956 contained in Notification No. F. 12 (19)/52056. There is no doubt that the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 authorises the Government to review rent-rates in certain circumstances i. e. if the Government is satisfied that before the closing of the settlement operation, the rent rates sanctioned by the State Government required modification on account of error in judgment with regard to formation of assessment circle, classification of soil or rent rates. It provides the procedure for framing of proposals, for appointment of a reviewing Officer, for reframing of assessment circle, a classification of soil and modification of rent. It also provides what matters to be considered by the Reviewing Officer and then after the recommendation is received, the State Government u/s 8 can sanction modification of the previous rent-rates and sec. 9 validates those rent rates. Thus as far as law laid down in the Rajasthan Review and Validation Rent Rates Act is concerned it is perfectly legal and valid. The counsel for the appellant does not challenge the validity of these Acts. His only contention was that as far as the payment of compensation to the appellant for resumption of his jagir was concerned only those rent rates are to be taken into consideration which were actually recorded in the record of rights at the time of resumption and there subsequently entered. In support he has cited the rulings contained in the 'r. D. 1955. In the case of Nanak Chand vs. the Board of Revenue, sec. 20 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reformation Act came up for consideration and it was held that the entry of the name as occupant in Khasra or Khatauni of Fasli 1356 could only be taken into consideration as recorded in that Khatauni on the relevant date conferring the right of a Adhivasi on those persons who were so recorded. In the case of Gokaran Singh vs. Ranjeetsingh again sec. 20 of the same Act came into consideration and it was laid down by the Judicial Member that accuracy of the entry of 1956 fasli cannot be questioned after the date of vesting. Similar view was taken in the case of Amba Prasad vs. Mahboob Alishah, a Supreme Court case which clearly laid down that the record of Khasra Khatauni of 1956 is a material factor and the entry of record is all that is required, the proof of actual possession is not necessary. The counsel for the appellants therefore developed an argument that it was the vested right of the appellant to be paid compensation on the basis of the rent as recorded in the record of rights in the basic year. This vested right the counsel urged cannot be taken away after the resumption. It was in the nature of a contract between the Government and the ex-jagirdar by operation of law and there could be no unilateral repudiation of such contract by changing of rights. Sec. 26 of the Jagir Act, 1952 authorises the payment of compensation by the Government of the resumed jagir in accordance with the principle laid down in the Second Schedule. These principles determined how the compensation is to be paid to the jagirdar. Clause (1) of the second Schedule defines the term 'basic year' which means the agricultural year immediately preceding the agricultural year in which the date of resumption falls. This jagir was admittedly resumed in 1954, which is the Smt. year 2011. Cl. (2) provides the determination of the gross income of the jagirdar for the basic year as the total income of the jagir land under the various heads mentioned therein. Sub-cl. (9) of clause (2) states that the income from land revenue and rents from occupied lands comes within the definition of the gross income of the jagirdar. Clause (3) lays down that the income from rent shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of sec. 6 and 7. Sec. 6 lays down that the rental income from a jagir land is determined where the land is settled, as the total rent assessed on the jagir lands both Khudkasht and Khatedari as entered in the revenue records of the village. Sec. 6 of the Jagir Act runs as follows: "6. Determination of rental income from jagir lands - (1) For the purpose of assessing the land revenue payable in respect of the jagir lands of Jagirdar the Collector shall first determine the rental income from such lands in the manner hereinafter provided: (a) Where the village is settled village, the total of: (i) the rents assessed on the jagir lands (other than Khudkasht lands which have not been so assessed) as entered in the revenue records of the village. The whole scheme under the Jagir Act for determination of gross income is determined in accordance with the principle laid down in Schedule II clause (2) and clause (3) readwith sec. 6 of the aforesaid Act. It means the assessed rent of the Jagir village which is recorded in the Revenue Record of the village for the basic year only has to be taken into consideration i. e. in this case since the jagir was resumed in 1954 the basic year would be svt. 2010 i. e. the agricultural year 1. 7. 53 to 30. 6. 64. There is no doubt that by a separate statute that is the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955, these very rent rates prevailing in this jagir village were modified retrospectively. The question therefore for determination before us is whether we should allow the modified rents to be utilised for the purpose of calculating gross income or those rents which were recorded in the revenue record in the basic year. It may also be noted that this jagir was resumed before the Rajasthan Review and Validation Rent Rates Act, 1955 came into force and therefore the appellant as a jagirdar on the resumption of his jagir by virtue of the Jagir Act, 1952 acquired a vested right to be paid compensation in accordance with the principle laid down in that Act. Those rates cannot be snatched away by a subsequent legislation unless a payment of compensation was provided or there was an express provision or by necessary intendment of the legislation that these modified rent-rates would also be applicable for payment of jagir compensation. The plain reading of the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 does not lead to an inference that these rent rates should be made applicable in such a way that they would affect the provisions of the Jagir Act and thus also modified the rent-rates on the basis of which the gross income of the jagirdar in the basic year would have to be determined. Thus the Acts i. e. the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act 1952 and the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act, 1955 are two independent statutes and in the absence of a clear provision in the latter as well as in the former, an inference cannot be drawn that the Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act also modified the provision contained in the Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The rulings cited by the counsel for the appellant referred to above apply fully to this case i. e. when a statute mentioned that a right of a particular person in that case whether the Adivasi rights were acquired by the person or not it has to depend by the actual entry made in the record of rights in the relevant date. Similarly applying the analogy of the above rule of law it can be said with justification that the jagirdar is entitled to the payment of the compensation of his resumed jagir on the basis of the assessed rents as recorded in the revenue records in the basic year although these rent rates may have been changed for other purposes by the Government under a different enactment. As regards the second contention the Addl. Jagir Commissioner did not apply his mind when the case was remanded by the Board of Revenue for passing fresh order on the proper appreciation of the evidence with regard to other income of the jagirdar, we are fully convinced that the Addl. Jagir Commissioner allowed his previous orders to stand without giving any reason merely on the ground that both the parties did not adduce any further evidence. The question of adducing any further evidence by the party claiming compensation was not at all required in this matter. The Addl. Jagir Commissioner was simply required to pass fresh orders on the basis of the proper appreciation of evidence with regard to other income claimed by the ex-jagirdar. He should have the order of the superior authority in the spirit in which it was made and therefore we find it necessary that as far as the redetermination of the other income is concerned, the case must go back to the Jagir Commissioner for first determination of other incomes of the ex-jagirdar afresh based on the proper appreciation of evidence and in accordance with law, applying the principle of the decisions of the High Court in Dudu case. We are convinced that the technical rule of Civil Procedure and sec. 34 of the Evidence Act which requires every entry in the books of account to be proved is not at all necessary for the assessment of jagir income. This has to be done in a summary fashion and on the basis of the judgment by the: assessing authority as to how far he could rely upon the books of account of the claim was genuine. It is for the assessing authority to decide whether the books of account would be relied upon or not and if so the entries made in those hooks which are relevant for the purpose of a particular type of income should to be taken into consideration, where necessary. We, therefore, accept the appeal of the appellant set aside the order of the Addl. Jagir Commissioner with the direction that the appellant be paid compensation on the basis of the rental income as recorded in the revenue records in the basic year and not the revised or modified rates subsequently made. He should determine afresh his other income such as forest, grazing and non-agricultural uses of land after hearing the parties and keeping in view our observations made above. .;