- (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Thakur Ranbir Singh challenging the validity of the notification issued by the State Government under sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (No. VI of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act) with respect to the applicant's Jagir. The applicant is the Jagirdar of Thikana Bahar situate in Tehsil Niwai in the district of Tonk. The annual rental income of his Jagir is about Rs. 19,000/- -. A notification was issued by the State Government on the 25th of January, 1956 by which a number of Jagirs were ordered to be resumed as from the 1st of February, 1956 by name. The applicant's contention is that that notification under sec. 21 is invalid for three main reasons, namely: - (1) That the State Government had no authority viz. to resume Jagirs by name and that under sec. 21 of the Act, it could only notify resumption of Jagirs class by class. (2) That there was discrimination, even assuming that the notification of the 25th of January, 1956 was valid, inasmuch as the applicant was treated differently from two other Jagirdars, namely Jagirdars of Jhilai and Siras. It was also urged during arguments in this very connection that there was discrimination as the Jagirs in only two districts were resumed and not in other districts of Rajasthan. (3) That even assuming that by that notification the Government was resuming all settled Jagirs with an income of over rupees one thousand per year, the applicant's Jagir was not a settled Jagir and, therefore, could not be resumed.
(2.) THE application has been opposed on behalf of the State Government. THEir contention is that the State Government was resuming Jagirs class by class and by December, 1954 it had issued a number of notifications, the cumulative effect of which was that all settled Jagirs with an annual income of rupees one thousand and over were to be resumed by the 1st of January, 1955. Thus a major portion of the Jagirs were resumed by the 1st of January, 1955. But there were still a large number of Jagirs which were not settled and could not be resumed by the 1st of January, 1955. THErefore what the Government did thereafter was that as and when Jagirs having an animal income of more than one thousand rupees came to be settled after the 1st of January, 1955 notifications used to be issued resuming those Jagirs after settlement. It is urged that the notification of the 25th of January is one such notification and that though the notification itself appears as if certain Jagirs were being resumed by name, in fact what has happened is that all Jagirs settled upto that time with an annual income of over rupees one thousand were ordered to be resumed by this notification. As to the second point, the State's reply is that there was no discrimination with respect to the Jagirs of Jhilai and Siras. In the case of Jhilai, it is said that certain villages in that Jagir were unsettled and, therefore, though it was included by mistake in the notification of 25th of January, 1956, it was actually not resumed. As to Siras, it was said that though resumption proceedings had taken place, the Parchas had not been distributed to the tenants and therefore, it was treated as unsettled and not resumed even though it was also included by mistake in the notification of the 25th of January, 1956. As to the point raised in the arguments in this connection, it was urged that there was no foundation raised in the petition by the applicant for the charge that only Jagirs settled in two districts were resumed and, therefore, this point should not be entertained at this stage. As to the third point, the contention of the State is that the applicant's Jagir was actually settled in November, 1954 and the settlement Parchas were distributed and cash rents were fixed from 1st of July, 1954. The applicant never objected to this settlement. Some others did object and in their case, the settlement Parchas, which had been distributed, were ordered by this Court not to be enforced in view of certain irregularities. Thereafter the Government took action to remove the irregularities not only in the case of those persons who had come to this Court, but throughout the Tehsil Niwai. But it is urged that that would merely revise the cash rents already fixed and the Jagir of the applicant in particular must be held to have been settled before the 25th of July, 1956. We shall now deal with these points one by one. So far as the first point is concerned, there is no doubt that the notification of the 25th of January 1956 as it appeared in the Gazette of the 27th of January, 1956 merely mentioned certain Jagirs by name as being resumed under sec. 21 of the Act and the applicant might to that extent have been misled. But the actual position, which is now disclosed on the basis of the State Government's reply to this petition, is this. The State Government is authorised under S. 21 of the Act to resume any class of Jagirs and to do so by stages. In pursuance of these powers conferred on the State Government, a number of notifications were issued from time to time resuming Jagirs of various incomes. The last of these notifications, so far as one is concerned with in this case, was issued in December, 1954 by which all settled Jagirs of an annual income of rupees one thousand and over were ordered to be resumed by the 1st of January, 1955. Thus by that date, the policy of the State Government was clear, namely that all Jagirs, which were settled and which had an income of rupees one thousand and over, were to be resumed. But as we have pointed out above, there were an appreciable number of Jagirs with an income of over one thousand rupees which had not been settled. Therefore, what the State Government did thereafter, (once the policy of resuming all settled Jagirs of the annual income of rupees one thousand and over was settled), was to issue notification as and when Jagirs of this class became settled due to settlement operations which were going on in various parts of the State. Such notifications could only be issued by name because as a class all settled Jagirs of the annual income of rupees one thousand and over had already been ordered to be resumed. Therefore, when the State Government started notifications after the 1st of January, 1955 for resumption of Jagirs of the annual income of rupees one thousand and over which were getting settled as and when settlement operations in various parts of Rajasthan came to an end, it was only carrying out the policy which had already been settled and declared in December, 1954. Perhaps it would have been better if such notifications, which under the circumstances were bound to be issued by name of Jagirs, had contained a preamble stating that the State Government had already decided to resume settled Jagirs of the income of rupees one thousand and over and as the following Jagirs had got settled after that notification, they were being resumed. If this was done, probably there would have been no misunderstanding anywhere and the applicant might also not have come to this Court. But considering the facts, as they have been disclosed before us, we have no doubt that the order of the 25th January, 1956 was of this nature, though the preamble to it did not state so in so many words. We hope that in future notifications this will be borne in mind so that there may be no misunderstanding on the point. But as the facts disclosed in this case show, the notification of the 25th of January, 1956 has been issued only to carry out the policy of the Government to resume all settled Jagirs of the annual income of rupees one thousand and over which was proclaimed as far back as December, 1954. It was, however, pointed out on behalf on the State that there were mistakes in this notification. Such mistakes, in our opinion, would not invalidate the notification and all that happened is that if by mistake, a Jagir was included by name in this list, which either was not settled or did not have the annual income of rupees one thousand and over, that Jagir could not be deemed to be resumed by such a notification. We are, therefore, of opinion that the notification of the 25th of January, 1956 cannot be attacked on the ground that individual Jagirs have been indiscriminately resumed by it and that there is no classification apparent, as required by sec. 21 of the Act. Then we come to the second point, namely that there has been discrimination. So far as that part of this point is concerned which was raised in arguments viz. that the correspondence that has been filed by Government only discloses that these Jagirs relate to two districts only and therefore there is discrimination because Jagirs in other districts of Rajasthan, which might have been settled and which might be of an annual income of mpees one thousand and over had not been resumed. We are of opinion that if it was the case of the applicant that the notification was hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution, he should have made out that case in this application by putting before the Court facts which would lead the Court to infer that there was in fact discrimination. Such discrimination cannot be presumed on the ground that there might be some Jagirs which might not have been resumed. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that settled Jagirs of the income of rupees one thousand and over in other districts of Rajasthan were deliberately not resumed and only these Jagirs in the districts of Jaipur and Tonk were resumed. Then we come to the other part of the argument in this connection relating of Jhilai and Siras. So far as Jhilai is concerned, the State's reply is that some villages in this Jagir have not been settled and therefore, it was not resumed, though it was included by mistake in this notification. The applicant has filed an affidavit to the effect that all the villages in Jagir Jhilai have been settled. All that we need say on this question of fact is that we accept the affidavit of the State for present purposes; but we may remark that if it is really a fact that all the villages of Jhilai Jagir have been settled, it would certainly be the duty of the State to resume this Jagir also as soon as possible. As for Siras, the reply of the State is that this was not resumed because the parchas were not distributed and cash rents, therefore, were not fixed and made known to the tenants. We are of opinion that in view of these circumstances, these two Jagirs appears to have been included in this notification by mistake. They were, therefore, not actually resumed later when the mistake was discovered. It cannot be said that the notification was on account of discrimination. Then we come to the last point, namely whether the applicant's Jagir is settled or not. The notifications issued from time to time provide for resumption of "settled Jagir lands" of the annual income of rupees one thousand and upwards. The contention of the applicant is that his land is not settled Jagir land and reliance in this connection is placed on a judgment of this Court in Thakur Man Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (writ Petition No. 414 of 1954, decided on 2nd of January, 1956) and on the definition of the word 'settled village' in sec. 2 clause (n) of the act. Thakur Man Singh had filed a writ application challenging the settlement of his Jagir which was in Tehsil Niwai. His contention was that certain provisions of the law relating to settlement contained In the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act had not been complied with. This Court following its earlier decision in Thakur Sangram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Civil Writ Petition No. 305 of 1953, decided on 23rd November, 1954) held that (n) view of certain irregularities the rent rates evolved by the Settlement Officer should not be enforced in the Jagir of Thakur Man Singh and that fresh rates should be proposed according to law. The applicant contends that this decision in a way unsettled the entire settlement made in Tehsil Niwai and that as his Jagir land is in Tehsil Niwai, it should be held that his Jagir land was unsettled and, therefore, could not be resumed under the notification of the 25th of January, 1956 as it only related to settled Jagir lands. It was also urged that in view of the definition of the words 'settled village' it must be held that the village must be legally settled before a Jagir could be said to be 'settled Jagir land. ' We are of opinion that we need not go into the definition of the 'settled village' for purposes of giving meaning to the settled Jagir lands in the various notifications that have been issued. 'settled village' was defined for a particular purpose in the Act, namely for the purpose of calculating compensation. Further, the notifications resuming Jagir lands do not say that Jagir lands consisting of settled villages will be resumed. What the notification says is that settled jagir lands will be resumed. Now let us consider what may be called settled Jagir lands. It is well known that in many parts of Rajasthan rents used to be paid in kind and the Jagirdar was entitled to a share of the produce. When the Act was passed, a distinction was made between settled and unsettled Jagirs and those Jagirs where rents had been settled in the sense that they were to be paid in cash were treated as settled Jagirs, while those Jagirs in which kind rents still prevailed were considered as unsettled The State followed the policy of resuming only settled Jagir lands i. e. those Jagirs in which rents were payable in cash as the question of compensation would have become very complicated if unsettled Jagirs had been resumed. Therefore when the term settled Jagir lands is used in the notification, the meaning obviously is that those Jagirs where cash rents have been enforced. Wherever therefore in any Jagir, cash rents have become enforceable, those Jagirs must be treated as settled Jagir lands for purposes of these notifications. The next question is whether cash rents have become enforceable in the Jagir of the applicant. If they have, the applicant's Jagir would mean to be settled Jagir land and would be liable to resumption. In this connection the facts are that after settlement operations in Niwai Tehsil, certain rent rates were evolved and parchas fixing cash rents for tenants in the applicant's Jagir were distributed sometime in November, 1954. Thus cash rents became enforceable in the Jagir of the applicant from 1st of July, 1954 according to the orders of the settlement Officer. The applicant was apparently satisfied with the cash rents which were to ordered to be enforced, and never took any steps to challenge the correctness of the cash rents so fixed. It is true that Thakur Man Singh, who is also a Jagirdar in this Tehsil, came to this Court and got an order in his favour, in view of certain defects and irregularities, that the rent rates involved would not be enforced in his Jagir But that, in our opinion, could not be held to unsettle the cash rents which were fixed in all the Jagirs in that Tehsil, when parties concerned viz. the Jagirdars on the one hand and the tenants on the other were apparently satisfied and raised no objection to those rent rates in spite of the irregularities thai might have been committed. There is no reason why if the applicant was dissatisfied with the cash rents fixed in bis Jagir lands from the Ist of July, 1954, he should not have come to this court sometime at the end of 1954 or the beginning of 1955 just as Thakur Man Singh did. We are of opinion that it is coo late now for him to ask us to declare the cash rents fixed in his Jagir as not legally settled when he took no steps in that regard at the proper time. If we were to hold that the Jagir of the applicant is unsettled, we would be indirectly affecting the interests of a large number of persons who are not before us on an application which, so far as this matter is concerned, is very belated In these circumstances, when we find that the applicant was satisfied with the fixation of cash rents in his Jagir and those cash rents are apparently being paid since 1st of July, 1954, we do not see why we should not accept that state of affairs as indicating that in fact the Jagir lands of the applicant are settled in the sense that cash rents are prevailing in his Jagir. Our attention has been drawn to a certain notification of Government by which steps are being taken in view of the decision of this court in Thakur Man Singh's case to regularise the position throughout the whole Tehsil, if necessary, to revise the cash rents fixed in 1954. But that again, in our opinion, cannot do away with the fact that in the Jagir of the applicant cash rents are prevailing since 1st of July, 1954 and that the applicant did not take any steps like Thakur Man Singh to see that those cash rents should not prevail in his Jagir because of any irregularities committed in the course of settlement operations. The conclusion, therefore, at which we arrive in the circumstances of this case is that the applicant's Jagir is settled Jagir land inasmuch as cash rents are prevailing in it without any objection from the applicant at any time since 1st of July, ] 951. At any rate, there was no objection by him of any kind when upto the time when the notification of the 25th of January, 1956 was issued. The State Government, therefore, would not be unjustified in treating the applicant's Jagir as settled Jagir land in the circumstances. For the rest, if any revision is needed in view of the Judgment of this Court in Thakur Man Singh's case steps are being taken to make that revision in the cash rents. But that so far as the Jagir of the applicant is concerned, it does not mean that it is not settled Jagir land in the sense that cash rents are prevailing therein. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no force in this point also. The application is hereby rejected, but in view of the fact that the notification was defective and might have led to misunderstanding, we order the parties to bear their own costs. . ;