Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THESE are four connected writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution directed against two orders, one fixing the rent rates as a result of settlement operation which commenced in Barmer Tehsil on 1. 11. 51 and the other enforcing three rent rates with effect from the beginning of the agricultural year Smt. 2012.
(2.) THE petitioners are jagirdars whose jagir land was situated in Barmer Tehsil. THEir jagirs were resumed on 13th September 1956 that is in agricultural year Smt. 2013. Settlement operation commenced in this Tehsil on 1. 11. 51 under the Marwar Land Revenue Act 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) under notification dated 24th October 1951. THE facts which appear from the record of the Settlement Department which was produced before us on behalf of the respondents and which are relevant for purposes of the present petitions are these. THE Settlement Officer submitted his rent report on 25. 12. 55. He recommended in this report that rent rates proposed by him should be enforced from Smt. year 2013, that is from the first day of July next following the rent rate report. THE proposals of the Settlement Officer were scrutinised by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who proposed that the rent rates may be enforced from Smt. years 2012. THE Settlement Commissioner to whom the papers were then forwarded agreed with the recommendations of the Additional Commissioner about enforcing the new rent rates from Smt. 2012. THE Board of Revenue thereupon recommended to the Government that the new rent rates may be introduced with effect from the beginning of Smt. 2012. THE Government were pleased to accept this recommendation. On 9. 3. 56 the Settlement Commissioner sent the following telegram to the Settlement Officer: - Rent rate Parchas for Barmer West Central and eastern areas be distributed to come into effect from Smt. 2012. On receipt of the above telegram the Settlement Officer passed an order on the same day as follows: - Inform the four Assistant Settlement Officers to take up rent declaration from Smt. 2012. Rent rate parchas were then distributed to the tenants by the Settlement Dispart-ment under the provision of sec. 85. They were signed by the Rent Declaration Officer Settlement Department. It was mentioned in these parchas that rent stated therein would be payable with effect from the beginning of agricultural year Smt. 2012. It was from these parchas that the petitioners come to know what were the rent rates which were fixed as a result of the settlement and from what date these rates were being enforced. They made a representation to the Government, both against the rent rates and against the date of enforcing them. This representation was rejected. When petitioners were informed of it they filed the present petitions. So far as the rent rates are concerned the contention of the petitioners is that they have been fixed much lower than is warranted by the provisions of the Act and that in fixing them the Settlement Officer has violated the directions contained in sec. 82, such violations being apparent on the face of the rent report. So far as the date of enforcement of the new rent rates is concerned the contention of the petitioners is that under the Act the only person vested with the power to enforce the rent rates with effect from a date earlier than the first day of July next following the date of the order was the Settlement Officer, that such an order was required to be supported by reasons which were to be incorporated in the order, and that neither the Settlement Commissioner, nor the Board of Revenue nor the Government could interfere with the discretion of the Settlement Officer in the matter. The petitioners are directly interested both in the rates of rent fixed as a result of the settlement and in the date from which they are enforced in this way. Their jagirs were resumed on 13th September 1956. The compensation to which they are entitled under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, is to be determined on the basis of their gross income for the agricultural year immediately preceding the agricultural year in which the date of resumption falls. This basic year in their case is Smt. 2012. If the new rent rates are enforced from Smt. 2012 then the jagir lands will be treated as settled lands and the compensation will be determined under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 on the basis of the rents assessed by the Settlement Officer. If however the rent rates are enforced from Smt. 2013 then the jagir lands will be treated as unsettled in Smt. 2012 and compensation will be determined under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, on the basis of the actual income of the petitioners from rents during the agricultural years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. Some erstwhile tenants of the petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 20, 21 and 25 of 1958 filed applications for being heard as interveners. They were also heard. We are of the opinion that the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners must be upheld. Sec. 86 runs as follows: - Any rent fixed by order of the Settlement Officer under this Act shall be payable from the first day of July next following the date of such order, unless the Settlement Officer thinks fit, for any reasons, to direct that it shall be payable from some earlier date. It will be seen that any rent fixed by order of the Settlement Officer shall be payable from the first day of July next following the date of such order unless the Settlement Officer directs that it shall be payable from sum earlier date. The only authority in which the power to so direct vests is the Settlement Officer. His order in this behalf is not subject either to modification by the Board or to approval by Government. In this connection it is pertinent to refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (1 ). In the present case the Settlement Officer was of the opinion that the new rent rates should be enforced from Smt. 2013 as their determination had taken place in Smt. 2012. He saw no reason to direct the enforcement of the new rates from an earlier date. It was the Settlement Commissioner who recommended that they should be enforced from Smt. 2012 and his report shows that the only reason which he gave for it was in the following words: - "the Settlement Officer has proposed that the rents should come into force from Smt. 2013 but when we have finalised the proposal in Smt. 2012 the period of settlement commences from Smt. 2012. " The above recommendation was clearly based on a complete ignorance of the provisions of sec. 86 and even the Settlement Commissioner had no valid reason in his mind for recommending the enforcement of the rents from an earlier date. The Board of Revenue also recommended to Government that the rent rates should be enforced from Smt. 2012 and this recommendation was approved. The Board of Revenue then sanctioned the rent rates from Smt. 2012 and the Settlement Commissioner sent a telegram to the Settlement Officer directing him to enforce them from Smt. 2012. It was on the back of the telegram that the Settlement Officer passed an order directing the Assistant Settlement Officers to issue rent parchas enforcing the new rents from Smt. 2012. This order passed by the Settlement Officer was not passed by him in the exercise of the power conferred by him under sec. 86. It was really an order of the Board of Revenue as approved by the Government, which he was carrying out. A feeble attempt was made by the learned Deputy Government Advocate to argue that before passing the subsequent order on the back of the Settlement Commissioner's telegram the Settlement Officer had a personal discussion about the matter and was convinced that it was proper to enforce the new rates from Smt. 2012 for the reasons mentioned in para 11 of the reply namely - The settlement operations had been considerably delayed and that was the only area in the former Jodhpur State that had remained unsettled so far. We were referred to Settlement Commissioner's letter dated 9th March 1956 to the Revenue Secretary in this connection. No such inference can be drawn from this letter which runs as follows: - I had been to Jodhpur and there the Settlement Officer, Barmer, informed me that the Collector, Barmer, is keen that the settlement rents in 505 villages of Barmer Tehsil included in the two reports, namely Barmer Central East and Barmer West, should not be brought into effect from Smt. 2012 but from 2013 on the ground that Smt. 2012 was a bad year and the Kharif rents have already been recovered by the jagirdars in kind and it may be difficult to adjust the rents. I have discussed this question with the Settlement Officer and he feels that there will be no difficulty in putting into effect the settlement rents from Smt. 2012. Parchas have also been prepared and distribution can be taken up immediately and will be completed in about a month's time. He also informed me that he had talked with you on phone. In this connection it may be mentioned that this aspect of the question was already discussed before the rent rate report was submitted to the Government through the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue had already agreed with my proposals to introduce the rent rates from Smt. 2012 and I do not feel any difficulty on the point as whereever tehsil has recovered rents even in kind, it has been found that settlement rents will be near about the actual collections made in Smt. 2012 and there should be no difficulty on this point. Moreover, in case Smt. 2012 is bad. Government can declare scarcity and grant remission. Hence I think that we should stick to the proposal of introducing the rent rates from Smt. 2012. I am informing the Settlement Officer accordingly. I will request you to kindly issue instructions in the matter. After I wrote this letter, we have discussed this question on phone also and accordingly I have issued a telegram, copy of which is enclosed. This has your concurrence.
(3.) ON the contrary the letter shows that the Settlement Officer was even then of the opinion that the new rents should be enforced from Smt 2013. For he told the Settlement Commissioner that the Collector of Barmer was emphatically of the opinion that they should not be enforced from Smt. 2012 without indicating that he did not agree with him. The kharif rents had already been collected in kind by the Jagirdars. All that can be said is that the Settlement Officer did not say for himself that there will be any difficulty in enforcing the new rent rates from Smt. 2012. What he said positively was that parchas were ready and could be distributed at once. Next it was contended that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal which they should have availed of. As has been shown above the order directing the enforcement of rents from an earlier date was not passed by the Settlement Officer. It was really an order of the Board of Revenue which had been approved by Government. It would have been a farce to appeal against it to the Board of Revenue. (See the decision of this Court in Firm Murlidhar Brijmohan of Jhunjhunu vs. State of Raja-sthan) (2) Only the Government could have set aside the order and the petitioners made a representation to it before coming to this Court. As has been pointed out above neither the Settlement Commissioner nor the Board of Revenue nor the Government had any power to direct that the new rents should be enforced from Smt. 2012. Only the Settlement Officer had that power and he passed no such order in exercise of the power conferred on him under sec. 86 of the Act. We accordingly hold the order enforcing the new rents from Smt. 2012 to be void and direct that they shall only be enforced from Smt. 2013. So far as lands which formed part of the jagirs of the petitioners are concerned the petitioners had already collected Kharif rents in kind from their tenants in Smt. 2012. So far as rabi rents are concerned the State will be free to collect them at any rate it chooses or to remit them altogether as that is a matter between it and its tenants and the petitioners are not affected thereby as their jagirs were resumed on 13. 9. 1956. Arguments were addressed to us on the question as to whether or not the Settlement Officer is bound to record his reason if he chooses to enforce the rents from an earlier date under sec. 86. We are of the opinion that the language of sec. 86 shows that he must incorporate his reasons in his order under sec. 86. If the words used had been merely "unless the Settlement Officer thinks fit to direct that it shall be payable from some earlier date" it would not have been necessary for him to record the reasons. But the words used being "unless the Settlement Officer thinks fit, for any reasons, to direct that it shall be payable from some earlier date" it is incumbent on him to incorporate his reasons in his order, Which is a public order passed in the exercise of statutory powers. As we have held above that so far as the petitioners are concerned the settlement can only be enforced from Smt. 2013 as their jagirs were resumed in Smt. 2012 their interest will not be affected in any way by whatever rent rates are enforced from Smt. 2013. It is therefore unnecessary to go into the question whether or not the rent report is liable to be set aside on the ground that it violates the provisions of sec. 82. ;