1986 Supreme(Raj) 391

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.M.Kasliwal, J.
Mahant Ram Swaroop - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and ors. - Respondents
S.B.C.W.P. No. 780 of 1985.
Decided On : 17-02-1986

The scope of inquiry under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 is limited to determining whether the property in dispute falls in the category of private property of the Jagirdar or not. It does not extend to disputes between the Jagirdar and any other person relating to the private property. Such disputes are to be decided by the Civil Court.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN LAND REFORMS AND RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 23 - RAJASTHAN LAND REFORMS AND RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS RULES, 1954 - RULE 21 - RAJASTHAN PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1959 - SECTION 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE OF INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT - JURISDICTION OF JAGIR COMMISSIONER AND DEVASTHAN COMMISSIONER - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC TRUST - APPLICABILITY OF PUBLIC TRUST ACT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT TO DETERMINE NATURE OF PROPERTY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Mahant Ram Swaroop, was granted three jagirs by his ancestors: two in the town of Sawai Jaipur (Kishanpole and Bhawani Shankerpura) in 'Udak' tenure and one in the village Aakodiya Tehsil Chaksoo in 'Bhog' tenure. The Government wanted to dispossess the petitioner of the property known as Chhota Ramdwara in Kishanpole. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was allowed, and the State Government was forbidden from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the disputed properties. The Collector, Jaipur, then issued an order authorising the Tehsildar to take over charge of the Jagir from the petitioner. The petitioner filed a list of his private properties to the Tehsildar, including Chhota Ramdwara, claiming it as his private property under Section 23(1) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (the Act). The Tehsildar forwarded the list to the Jagir Commissioner, who, in turn, forwarded it to the Collector Jagir for enquiry. The Collector Jagir submitted his report, finding that the property situated in Chhota Ramdwara was the private property of the petitioner. However, the Jagir Commissioner, in his judgment, held that the property belonged to the idol Mahadeoji and not to the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the State Government filed appeals before the Board of Revenue, which dismissed the State's appeal and allowed the petitioner's appeal, setting aside the Jagir Commissioner's order and remanding the case for fresh disposal. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order, arguing that the Board had no jurisdiction to remand the case for further inquiry. The State Government and the objectors, who claimed that the property was a public trust, also filed writ petitions. The Devasthan Commissioner had ordered a fresh inquiry into the matter under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (the Public Trust Act). The petitioner challenged this order in a separate writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

1. The scope of inquiry under Section 23 of the Act is limited to determining whether the property in dispute falls in the category of private property of the Jagirdar or not. It does not extend to disputes between the Jagirdar and any other person relating to the private property. Such disputes are to be decided by the Civil Court. 2. The Jagir Commissioner has no jurisdiction to determine the nature of the property as a public trust or private property. This is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. 3. The Devasthan Commissioner has no jurisdiction to order a fresh inquiry under Section 7 of the Public Trust Act where a quasi-judicial order has already been passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19 of the Act, and no appeal has been filed against such order.

Issues: 1. Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to remand the case to the Jagir Commissioner for further inquiry under Section 23 of the Act. 2. Whether the Jagir Commissioner had jurisdiction to determine the nature of the property as a public trust or private property. 3. Whether the Devasthan Commissioner had jurisdiction to order a fresh inquiry under Section 7 of the Public Trust Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope of inquiry under Section 23 of the Act is limited to determining whether the property in dispute falls in the category of private property of the Jagirdar or not. It does not extend to disputes between the Jagirdar and any other person relating to the private property. Such disputes are to be decided by the Civil Court. 2. The Jagir Commissioner has no jurisdiction to determine the nature of the property as a public trust or private property. This is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. 3. The Devasthan Commissioner has no jurisdiction to order a fresh inquiry under Section 7 of the Public Trust Act where a quasi-judicial order has already been passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19 of the Act, and no appeal has been filed against such order.

Final Decision: 1. The writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order is allowed. The Board's order remanding the case to the Jagir Commissioner for further inquiry is set aside. 2. The writ petition challenging the Jagir Commissioner's order is allowed. The Jagir Commissioner's order declaring the property to be the property of the idol Mahadeoji is set aside. 3. The writ petition challenging the Devasthan Commissioner's order is allowed. The Devasthan Commissioner's order directing a fresh inquiry is quashed.