The allotment of khudkast land to ex-jagirdars under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, was not a gratuitous grant, and the ex-jagirdars had a right to claim khudkast land subject to the availability of the land.

JUDGMENT

1. - This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur, dated 22-3-71 in a suit for damages.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, respondents Nanulal and Mst. Surajbai were the jagirdars of village Ladpura in Tehsil Lalsot. Their jagirs were resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, hereinafter to be referred as the Act. At the time of the resumption of the jagir, they did not possess khudkasht land and as such they applied to the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Under Section 14 of the Act for the allotment of khudkasht land. After considering their claim, the Collector, Jaipur, vide his order dated 12-10-61 allotted land measuring 120 bighas situate in (sic) Ghatelav, tehsil Dausa, district Jaipur, to the plaintiffs and one Kapoorchand as khudkasht land. This allotment order was received by the plaintiffs on 14-11-61 from the Deputy Collector, Jagir On 18-11-61 the plaintiffs applied to the Tehsildar, Dausa that they might be given possession of the khudkasht land allotted to them. The Tehsildar sought some clarification from the Collector, Jagir. The plaintiffs sent reminders to the Deputy Collector, Jaipur, but no reply was received from them. Ultimately, the State Government vide us letter dated 12-10-65 informed the Collector, Jaipur, that the land in question was meant for Harijans and therefore cannot be allotted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs along with Kapoorcnand filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Government order dated 12-10-65. this Court vide its judgment dated 13-3-68 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 12-10-65 passed by the State Government. It further appears that thereafter the State Government handed over possession of the allotted land measuring 120 bighas to the plaintiffs and Kapoorchand sometime in the month of July 1968. The plaintiff thereafter brought the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the recovery of Rs. 14700/-, as the damages for withholding the possession of the allotted land. The details of the plaintiffs' claim are as follows:

1.	Rs. 3700/-	realised by the defendant from sale of grass from 1961 to 1968.
2.	Rs. 11000/-	as damages on account of loss of income which the plaintiffs would have derived by cultivation of the land had its possession been handed over to them in time.
	Rs. 14,700/-

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant State of Rajasthan on various grounds. It denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or the price of grass. It was also pleaded that no suit was maintainable for damages relating to the period from 12-10-61 to July 1968. Further it was pleaded that the suit was barred by time. It was then pleaded that Kapoorchand was a necessary party. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck by the trial court:

1. Whether the defendant realised Rs. 3700/- from the sale of grass during the period from 12-10-61 to July 1968 and the plaintiffs are entitled to receive this amount from the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to realise Rs. 11,000/- from the defendant as damages for loss of income?

3. Whether the claim for the period 12-10-61 to July 1965 in not maintainable and is also barred by limitation?

4. Whether Kapoorchand is a necesseary party to the suit?

5. Relief.
The learned District Judge after evidence came to the conclusion that during period from 1961 to 1968 the State had realised income of Rs. 10948/- by auction of grass pertaining to 270 bighas out of which the plaintiffs and Kapoorchand were allotted 120 bighas. The learned District Judge further held that the suit was governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for preceding three years from the date of the suit that is, from 1-6-66 He assessed the damages at Rs. 2750/-. The other issues wer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document