Ranawat, C.J.—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Chandra Kant Rao held a Jagir which was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (No. VI of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the 1st of August, 1954, and the compensation, payable to him, was determined by the Jagir Commissioner under sec. 32 of the Act. The State Government claimed an amount of Rs. 67,495/2/- from the petitioner and a certificate for its recovery was issued by the Finance Department under rule 37 C of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954, which shall be referred to as the Rules in this judgment. Before that, a notice was given to the petitioner to pay up the dues or to file his objections, if any, but as the Rajasthan Jagirdars Debt Reduction Act (No. IX of 1957) had not come into force till then, the petitioner did not raise any objection as he did not want to dispute the liability to pay the amount as such. After the coming into force of Act IX of 1957, the petitioner made a representation on the 28th of March, 1960, to the Jagir Commissioner, claiming the benefit of sec. 8 read with Schedule III of that Act (No. IX of 1957). On the 30th of March 1960, the Jagir Commissioner refused to grant any such relief and directed the petitioner to make his representation to the State Government in that connection. That order is Ex. P. 4 and its perusal shows that the Jagir Commissioner felt that he had no jurisdiction to go into the petitioners claim, presumably on account of the clear provisions of rule 37 C(4) of the Rules. The petitioner then approached the Government on the 14th of April, 1960, but finding that the Government was not going to do anything in the matter, he has come to this Court by away of this writ petition.

2. The petitioner has prayed that a mandamus may be issued to the Jagir Commissioner or, in the alternative, to the Government, to hear his representation and to decide it on merits before recovering the arrears of the State loans under sec. 22 (i) (e) of the Act. He has also prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari setting aside the decision of the Jagir Commissioner for the deduction of Rs. 67,455/2/- from the compensation payable to the petitioner, without first determining his claim for the reduction of his debt under sec. 8 of Act No. IX of 1957 by entering satisfaction at 5/3 times for every one rupee of the face value of the bond.

3. No reply has been filed on behalf of the State. Mr. Rajnarain has not disputed the facts alleged by the petitioner.

4. The main argument of Mr. Tyagi is that rule 37 C(4) of the Rules leaves no discretion with the Jagir Commissioner to redetermine the amount recoverable from a Jagirdar under sec. 22(1)(e) of the Act and is invalid being inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act, particularly with sec. 32(1)(b) thereof. He has also contended that this Court has held in Mukanchand Vs. Rao Raja Inder Singh(l) that the proviso to sec. 2(e) of Act No. IX of 1957 is discriminatory and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. By that decision, the debts of the Government and the local authorities etc. were placed at par with those adjudged by civil courts in private cases. The learned counsel has therefore urged that the claim of the State against the petitioner should have been scaled down according to the provisions of Act No. IX of 1957. He has further argued that even though sec. 8 of Act No. IX of 1957 has been so worded as to make it expressly applicable to court decrees, it should be interpreted liberally so as to allow the benefit to persons against whom proceedings for recovery of State dues have been taken under R. 37-C of the Rules. For this, the learned counsel has invited attention to the definition of the term "suit to which this Act applies" in sec. 2(n) of Act No. IX of 1957 and has urged that the meaning of the terms "court" and "decree" in sec. 8 should be so construed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document