- (1.) TH. Sukh Singh the jagirdar of Pator-ka-Bara whose estate was resumed sometime in 1955, has filed this appeal against an order of the learned Jagir Commissioner, dated 30.11.57 in a case relating to the fixation of maintenance allowance to the respondent.
(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case appear to be that on the resumption of the estate of the appellant, the respondent being his son filed an application for fixation of a maintenance allowance under sec. 27 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act The learned Jagir Commissioner fixed a provisional maintenance allowance of Rs. 1715/- p.a. payable to the respondent by his order dated 9.5.56. Thereafter a notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why this amount be not made permanent. The appellant contested it on several grounds. The learned Jagir Commissioner however observed that according to sec. 6 read with sec. 36-A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs (Amendment Act, 1956. Act No. VIII of 1957 which was passed on the 4th February, 1957 his decision dated 9.5.56 fixing an interim allowance was final and non-appealable. Commissioner therefore held that in the circumstance he was not competent to open the case. He however observed that the matter could be re-examined at the time of working out the final compensation payable to the Jagirdar. Being aggrieved from this order the present appeal has been filed before us. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal. His contention is that the learned Jagir commissioner's order dated 9-5-56 about the fixation of an interim maintenance allowance having been validated by sec. 6 of the Act No. VIII of 1956 was final and non-appealable therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear the present appeal. We have examined the provisions of sec. 6 of the said Amendment Act No. VIII of 1956 It reads as below: - "6. Declaration of validity of certain decisions. - For the avoidance and removal of all doubts it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule order, judgment or other document - (a) All decisions of the Jagirs Commissioner directing the payment of any sums of money by way of interim maintenance allowance or share given before the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1956, shall be deemed to have been validly and lawfully given under sec. 36 A and (b) all such decisions, if pronounced before the period of ninety days immediately preceding such commencement, shall be final and non-appealable." It is nobody's case that the original decision of the Jagir Commissioner dated 9-5-56 was given 90 days immediately preceding the coming into force of this amendment Act. Sec. 6 clearly lays clown that an order about the fixation of interim maintenance allowance or share given by the Jagir Commissioner, was final and non-appealable, provided it was given before the period of 90 days immediately preceding such commencement. The crucial order is dated 9-5-56. The scheme of the Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 shows that before the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 1956 referred to above, there was no provision under which the Jagir Commissioner could fix a provisional maintenance allowance payable to persons entitled to get the same. This seems to have caused some hardship to these persons and in order to remove it the Legislature enacted sec. 36-A whereby the Jagir Commissioner was authorised to fix interim maintenance allowance. Further in order to validate any such orders which may have been passed earlier without any express provisions of law, sec. 6 was introduced in the Amendment Act with the proviso that if these orders were nor challenged within 90 days immediately preceding the commencement of the Amendment Act., i.e. 4.2.57 these shall be final and non-appealable. The learned counsel for the appellant however points out that in fixing the provisional maintenance allowance the learned Jagir Commissioner did not even summon his client and decided the matter behind his back which was wholly unwarranted and against the principle of natural justice. We would have perhaps examined this position, but the said order is non-appealable. Therefore, we do not find ourselves competent to entertain this appeal on any ground. In this view of the matter we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and hold that this appeal is not maintainable and accordingly we dismiss it.;