NARENDRA MOHAN KANSLIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated April 11, 1978, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Collector, Jaipur, issued a notice to Rao Dhir Singh an ex -Jagirdar of Shahpura that an amount of Rs. 1,43,307.60 p. was due against him on account of tribute, Lagan Khalsa, District Board case and Matmi charges. By this notice dated July 6, 1970, Rao Dhir Singh was asked to deposit the afore -mentioned amount in the treasury and in case he had any objection then he could file the same with documents within 15 days. This notice was followed by reminders dated November 13, 1970, and April 2, 1971. Rao Dhir Singh filed a writ petition to quash and set aside the notice dated July 6, 1970 as well as the two reminders issued by the Collector dated November 13, 1970 and April 2, 1971 and to prohibit the respondents to take any other proceedings in consequence of the above notice and reminders. The case of the petitioner was that he was Jagirdar of Thikana Shahpura, which was resumed by the Government on August 11, 1954. Any dues against the jagir could have been recovered from the amount of compensation awarded to the erstwhile Jagirdar in accordance with Section 46 read with Section 34(i) and Section (c) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (here in after referred to as the Jagir Act'). It was further alleged that on resumption of the petitioner's Jagir on August 11, 1954 he was paid compensation amounting to Rs. 6,40,185.70 p. vide final award dated November 4, 1960 (Annexure A'). According to the petitioner, it was mandatory for the Collector to send a notice in Form No IX in case any dues were out -standing against the Jagir as provided under Rule 37(c) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Rules, 1954, (here in after referred to as 'the Jagir Rules') A notice in form No. IX was issued to the petitioner on September 23, 1961, regarding payment of Matmi dues. Similarly, another notice was issued to the petitioner on February 21, 1963, regarding various dues mentioned in the notice outstanding against Thikana Shahpura. These notices received by the petitioner have been submitted and marked as Annexs. 'B' and 'C respectively. According to the petitioner, he filed objections against the above notices. Thereafter, no certificate as required in Form No. X was issued against the petitioner as required by the mandatory provisions of the Jagir Act. According to the petitioner, it was mandatory for the Collector to issue(sic) certificate in Form No. X specifying the outstanding dues against the Jagir in question. The Collector sends the certificate to the Jagir Commissioner, who in turn is empowered to deduct the dues so specified from the amount of compensation payable to the Jagirdar in question. In the present case, no certificate was issued in Form No. X by the Collector and the petitioner has been paid compensation in lieu of resumption of his Jagir as back as on November 4, 1960. It has thus been submitted that the Collector, Jaipur, had no jurisdiction to issue any notice after a lapse of ten years of the payment of compensation.
(3.) IT may be mentioned at this stage that Rao Dhir Singh, who had filed the writ petition, died before the decision of the writ petition and the present appellants were substituted in place of Rao Dhir Singh as his heirs and legal representatives.;