Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.—All these ten appeals have been presented under sec. 66(3) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Act No. III of 1955, hereinafter called "the Land Reforms Act"). They involve more or less common questions for determination about the payment of compensation under the above Act and have, therefore, been heard together. 2. Mr. Beri, the learned counsel for the appellants, has mainly raised two points in support of these appeals. The first point relates to the question of sayar or grazing fees. This question does not arise in appeals Nos. 17 and 93 of 1957. The learned counsel contends that the Compensation Commissioner was in error in reducing the amount of grazing fees claimed by the appellants in assessing the amount of compensation. It has not been contested before us, nor was it contested at earlier stages that the amount of sayar claimed by the appellants in these cases in respect of grazing fees had not actu-ally been realised by the appellants; but the Compensation Commissioner has objected to compensation being assessed on the basis of the amounts realised on the ground that in so far as the amounts related to the period during which the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Re-cordsAct (No. XLII of 1950, hereinafter called" the Ajmer Tenancy Act") was in force, the realisation made was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the claim had to be ignored. The Compensation Commissioner, therefore, purported to assess compensation in respect of the grazing fees on an arbitrary basis; with the result that the proportion has differed widely in different cases for no apparent reason, as shown by the chart of calculation submitted by the learned counsel. For instance the reduction in some cases is 1/3rd of the claim, in others less than l/3rd whereas in one or two cases even less than 1/4th or l/5th of the amount claimed. Mr. Beri points out that not only these reductions are arbitrary but also that there was no justification for the Compensation Commissioner to assume that the amount claimed by the appellants was in any way illegal. The other contention of Mr. Beri relates to the claim for compensation for sayar income under another head, viz., income from ground rent, that is rent for building or house sites. 3. The other contention of Mr. Beri relates to the claim for compensation for sayar income under another head, viz., income from ground rent, that is rent for building or house sites. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions it may be necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Ajmer Tenancy Act. Under the Schedule to the Land Reforms Act the gross income of an intermediary has to be calculated on the total income under various heads specified in paragraph 3 of the Schedule. Clause(c) of the paragraph refers inter alia to sayar income. Sayar income has been stated to include "income from ground rent for house sites, waste lands, hats, bazars, quarries, fisheries, zirs, mines, irrigation fee from private tanks and grazing fees, calculated on the basis of an average of twelve agricultural years immediately preceding the date of vesting". Paragraph 4 of the said Schedule provides for calculation of the net income of an intermediary after making certain deductions as mentioned therein from the gross income. The appellants submit that the amounts claimed before the Compensation authorities were sayar income on account of grazing fees and rent for house sites etc. calculated on the basis of an average of 12 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of vesting as realised by them. Therefore, the average income as shown by them during the period should have been adopted by the Compensation authorities in calculating their income as contemplated by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Schedule. Now what the Compensation Commissioner appears to have done is that he split up the period of 12 years into two periods; one prior to 1955 before the Ajmer Tenancy Act came into force and the other subsequent thereto. During the latter period the Compensation Commissioner observes that the intermediary claimed an average amount which was not authorised by the Tenancy Act and in consequence must be ruled out of consideration. Just to illustrate the point we may refer to the following observations in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 84 of 1957. During the latter period the Compensation Commissioner observes that the intermediary claimed an average amount which was not authorised by the Tenancy Act and in consequence must be ruled out of consideration. Just to illustrate the point we may refer to the following observations in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 84 of 1957. He observed that "since during this period of five years (Samvat 2007 to 2011) the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act was in force the intermediary should have allowed the cattle of the tenants into the Bir for the purpose of grazing and should have charged a fee per each particular head of cattle as prescribed by the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act." The Commissioner points out that "admit-tedly for the intermediary this procedure was not followed and his agent Kundanmal admitted that the Bir was auctioned for a lump sum for grazing purposes to the tenants and the charges for grazing were not recovered as per each particular head of cattle". Therefore, the Commissioner thought that the appellant should not be allowed to recover at the rate at which he claimed, the claim being illegal; and since there was no data supplied by the appellant to calculate the income during each of the five years, he adopted the arbitrary figure of Rs. 798.00. 4. Mr. Beri contends that the Commissioner has misconceived the legal position. He relies upon the fact that none of the officers below doubted that the appellants did realise fees on account of grazing charges at the rate claimed by them. It is true that the Ajmer Tenancy Act was in force during the period in question but when there was nothing to show that the realisation made by the appellants was not in accordance with the rates mentioned in the Ajmer Tenancy Act, the Compensation Officer and the Commissioner were in error in not accepting the figures given by the appellants under that head. The mere fact that the Bir was auctioned for a lump sum for grazing purposes to the tenants and the charges realised, does not necessarily indicate that the charges were illegal. He urges that the tenants to whom the Bir was auctioned were bound to realise fees in accordance with the rates mentioned in the Schedule to the Ajmer Tenancy Act. He urges that the tenants to whom the Bir was auctioned were bound to realise fees in accordance with the rates mentioned in the Schedule to the Ajmer Tenancy Act. There was never any complaint on that account made by any person who grazed his cattle in the Birs and in the circumstances the legitimate inference should have been that no illegal fees were ever charged from the persons Who grazed their cattle in the Birs in question. It must also be reasonably assumed that the tenants who took settlement of the Birs for the purpose must have done so on getting a margin of profit so that the realisation made by the landlord would be even less than the legal charges recoverable. These contentions are in our opinion quite sound. 5. It is true that the First Schedule of the Tenancy Act provides that grazing fee should be charged at certain rates and, in case of any dispute arising under the law, it had to be decided by the Tehsildar who would submit the record of the case for confirmation of the order passed by him to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The law further provides that in case of illegal exaction being imposed on the tenants, the tenants could demand an enquiry under sec. 108 of the Act arid in case it was found to be true and the charge established, then certain penalties were to be awarded against the land owners by way of compensation to the tenants. There is nothing to show that any such action was taken during the period or that there was any complaint by any of the tenants on that score. The learned Deputy Government Advocate in reply submits that if was the duty of the appellants to show that the grazing fees levied were in accordance with paragraph 6 of the First Schedule and in case of their failure to do so, the compensation authorities had no option but to assess at the rates mentioned by them or even to disallow any compensation under that head altogether. In other words, according to the learned Deputy Government Advocate the burden was entirely on the appellants to prove that the realisations were legal realisations. We are unable to accept that contention. In other words, according to the learned Deputy Government Advocate the burden was entirely on the appellants to prove that the realisations were legal realisations. We are unable to accept that contention. There is no presumption in favour of illegality; and in the circumstances of this case we find that there is no material for any such assumption. Even the Officer and the Commissioner have not referred to any such material. The mere circumstance that the Birs were auctioned for purposes of grazing at a lump amount, cannot indicate that any exactions were made by the landlords in excess of the rates mentioned in the Act. It is reasonable also to assume that when the Birs were auctioned the tenants who took the Birs for the purpose of grazing must have done so with some margin of profit for themselves and in the absence of any suggestion or evidence to the effect that the realisations made from the tenants were illegal, we are bound to hold on the facts disclosed in the judgment of the Compensation Officer and the Commissioner that the realisation by the appellants of grazing fees was not illegal. 6. The learned Deputy Government Advocate also draws out attention to the fact that under paragraph 1 of the First Schedule the fee for grazing and occupying house site was to be assessed annually by the Tehsildar in the manner prescribed. He contends that it was the duty of the landlord to have the said fees assessed by the Tehsildar and since this was not done the realisations made by the landlords on account of those fees had to be ignored. The answer to this contention is provided in the order of the Compensation Officer himself. This Officer has very rightly pointed out that the above provision of law would operate only after the mode of assessment had been prescribed. So long as the method of assessment of the fees was not fixed as provided for, the Tehsildar could take no action. It does not appear that any mode of assessment of the fees for grazing or occupying house sites has been prescribed and, therefore, paragraph 2 of the First Schedule was inoperative. It could not be possible for the landlords to get the grazing fees assessed by the Tehsildar under those circumstances. It does not appear that any mode of assessment of the fees for grazing or occupying house sites has been prescribed and, therefore, paragraph 2 of the First Schedule was inoperative. It could not be possible for the landlords to get the grazing fees assessed by the Tehsildar under those circumstances. Further there was nothing, in the Ajmer Tenancy Act to prohibit recovery of such dues till the Tehsildar had made the assessment. All that the Act provides is that the charges were not to exceed the various rates as mentioned in the Schedule. 7. The result, therefore, is that the Compensation Commissioner had no option but to accept the figures given by the intermediaries as to the average collection made by them during the period in question and the assumption to the contrary, that the realisation during the period of five years when the Ajmer Tenancy Act was in operation was illegal, is in our opinion clearly erroneous. 8. In regard to collection of Kholri or ground rent the officers appear to be justified in assessing on the materials before them, excepting in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 92 of 1957, where there was no such material available. Mr. Beri, however, does not think it necessary to press this point-even in appeal No. 92 of 1957 because of the small difference in the figures. 9. The other appeals are, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above, except appeals Nos. 87 and 93 of 1957, which will be dismissed. There will be no costs in these two appeals. The appellants are entitled to their costs in the other appeals. There will be one consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 200/-.