Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1967 Supreme(SC) 368

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and others, Appellants
Versus
Rao Baldev Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 454 of 1965,
D/- 14-12-1967.
Advocates appeared
M/s. M.C. Chagla, K. B. Mehta and Miss Indu Soni, Advocates for Appellants;
M/s. R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwala, Advocates of M/s. Rsmamurthi and Co., and M/s. Shivpujan Singh and Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
ANIL GUPTA, D.P.Singh, INDU SONI, K.B.MEHTA, M.C.CHAGLA, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, SHIV PUJAN SINGH

The Jagir Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the nature of the property under Section 23 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952.

Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Resumption of Jagir lands - Khudkasht lands of Jagirdar - Determination of nature of property - Jurisdiction of Jagir Commissioner - Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. VI of 1952), Secs. 23, 37, 46, 47 - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No. 15 of 1956), Secs. 122, 125, 136 - Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954, Rules 22, 23, 24, 26, 28.
Fact of the Case:

The jagir of respondent No. 1, Rao Baldev Singh was resumed with effect from August 15, 1954 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. VI of 1952). Respondent No. 1 claimed 5490 bighas and odd of agricultural land in villages Mirgarh, Anandgarh and Rawla in Ganganagar district and Anupgarh in Bikaner district as his khudkasht land. The dispute arose as to whether the land claimed by respondent No. 1 was khudkasht land within the meaning of section 23 (1) (a) read with Section 2 (i) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the dispute in this case is essentially as to the character of the property claimed by respondent No. 1 as khudkasht and falls directly within the purview of Section 23 of the Act and therefore the Jagir Commissioner is the exclusive authority to hold enquiry into the dispute and give a decision thereon.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute as to the character of the property claimed by respondent No. 1 as khudkasht falls within the purview of Section 23 of the Act? 2. Whether the Jagir Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the nature of the property under Section 23 (2) of the Act? 3. Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the orders of the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959, April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the dispute in this case is essentially as to the character of the property claimed by respondent No. 1 as khudkasht and falls directly within the purview of Section 23 of the Act and therefore the Jagir Commissioner is the exclusive authority to hold enquiry into the dispute and give a decision thereon. 2. The Court held that Section 23 of the Act is independent of sec. 37 of the Act as it deals with an enquiry of the nature of the property mentioned in Section 23 (1) and it has nothing to do with the question of determining the right, title or interest of the Jagirdar in the land. 3. The Court held that the Board of Revenue was right in taking the view that the Additional Jagir Commissioner should have followed the procedure prescribed by the statutory rules and the High Court had no justification for setting aside the order of the Board of Revenue dated April 8, 1960 and of July 16, 1962.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J.:- This appeal 18 brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 482 of 1962. By its judgment the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents and quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959, April, 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962.

2. The jagir of respondent No. 1, Rao Baldev Singh was resumed with effect from August 15, 1954 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. VI of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act. A notice was issued by the Collector, Bikaner to respondent No. 1 on August 23, 1954 asking him to hand over the charge of the jagir but respondent No. 1 did not comply with the notice as he had filed a writ application in the High Court challenging the validity of the Act. A subsequent notice was issued to respondent No. 1 by the Collector on May 14, 1955 directing him to hand over charge of the jagir. Respondent No. 1 actually handed over charge of the jagir on September 27, 1955 and at the same time submitted a list of his private properties under Section 23 of the Act. In the said list was included 5490 bighas and odd of agricultural land in villages Mirgarh, Anandgarh and Rawla in Ganganagar district and Anupgarh in Bikaner district which respondent No. 1 claimed as his khudkasht land. On March 18, 1957 respondent No. 1 made an application to the Tahsildar, Anupgarh to correct entries in the revenue records and to show the area claimed by him as his khudkasht land. After an enquiry the Tahsildar, Anupgarh forwarded the application to the Assistant Collector Ganganagar recommending the correction of the entries as prayed for by respondent No. 1. The Assistant Collector forwarded the papers to the Collector, Ganganager who recommended to the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner that the correction of entries may be made. By his order dated November 30, 1958 the Divisional Commissioner Bikaner accorded sanction and directed the Collector to enter the disputed lands in the revenue records as kbudkasht lands of respondent No. 1. On appeal to the Board of Revenue the case was remanded to the Divisional Commissioner on July 24, 1959 with a direction that he should refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner and kill his decision was received the entries in the revenue record should not be altered. It appears that the record of the case was transmitted for compliance to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar by the office of the Commissioner of Bikaner, who, after making an enquiry, submitted his recommendation to the Jagir Commissioner instead of sending it to the Divisional Commissioner to correct the relevant entries. Meanwhile the Director of Colonisation came to know of the proceedings which were going on and therefore he addressed a letter on December 22, 1958 to the Divisional Commissioner Bikaner to review his order dated November 30, 1958 and requested him to refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner who was the only competent authority to determine the nature of the disputed property under Sec. 23 (2) of the Act. On receipt of the said letter the Divisional Commissioner reviewed his previous order of November 30, 1958 and ultimately dismissed the objections of Director of Colonisation on March 5, 1959. It appears that the Additional Jagir Commissioner after receiving the papers from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar also decided the matter on October 5, 1959 holding that the disputed land should be treated as the personal property of the ex-Jagirdar of Sattasar. The State of Rajasthan preferred appeals to the Board of Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner, Bikaner dated March 5, 1959 and against the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October S. 1959. By its judgment dated July 24, 1959 the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Commissioner of Bikaner and directed him to decide the case after re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document