Mahant Prahlad Das v. State of Rajasthan — 1966 DIGILAW 191 (RAJ)

This revision petition by Mahant Prahladdas is directed against the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur dated 5-11-1963. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner who claims himself to be the successor and chela of Mahant Gangadas filed an objection against the settlement parcha issued by the Department with respect to the holding of Gangadas in village Jamroli, Tehsil Jaipur. Mahant Gangadas in his khata No, 78 held some khatedari land in village Jamroli consisting of 36 bighas 19 biswas according to the previous settlement. At the time of the revised settlement his holding were increased from36 bighas 19 biswas to 52 bighas and the rent was assessed on all these holdings. The petitioner contended that he held 15 bighas 4 biswas land as his garden land which was his jar kharid" i.e., the purchased property and was not assessable to rent and no rent should be assessed now on this. He claimed this concession on the basis of the copy of the order of the State Council Jaipur dated 1-9-1903 approved by His Highness of Jaipur. The Asstt. Records Officer however allowed vide his order dated 3-11-60 that this garden land be entered as jer kharid, but refused to give any concession with regard to the rent. In the appellate order of the Records Officer, Jaipur the judgment of the Asstt. Records Officer was upheld. But he further ordered that the word jer kharid be deleted on the ground that every holding under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is liable to pay land revenue and no concession of rent could be given. In the second appeal before the Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur the order of the Records Officer, Jaipur was upheld by the impugned order, hence this revision. A preliminary objection was raised by the Govt. Advocate that the petitioner was not the legal representative of the deceased Gangadas and he had no locus-stand to be present here. The counsel for the petitioners reply was that he has all along been contesting the proceedings in this case before the subordinate authorities as chela of the late Gangadas, besides by the order of the Revenue Board dated 14-9-1961 now produced, he has been recognised as the chela of Gangadas and therefore he can maintain these present proceedings in the Revenue Board. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been recognised by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 14-9-1961, a copy of which has now been filed by the petitioner, and thus the petitioner has been recognised as the chela of the late Gangadas and all his properties and matmi has been ordered in his favour, the petitioner is therefore clearly entitled to maintain and continue these proceedings and the preliminary objection of the Govt. Advocate is therefore over-ruled. On the merits the counsel for the petitioners contention was two fold-firstly that this garden land was purchased by him long time back from Guru Gangadas on the payment of Rs. 101/- and it was entered as jer kharid and no rent was charged. It become his personal property and therefore no rent could be charged now. Secondly from that date of the order of 1903 of the State Council,, right upto the present date no rent was ever charged by the Government on this garden holding. The land cannot now be assessed. The reply given by the Government Advocate was that if the land was treated as Udak grant and if no rent was charged, the petitioner can claim Jagir compensation, but he cannot escape from the liability to the payment of rent. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. In this case reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the order of the Jaipur State Council dated 1-9-1903 from which it appears that Guru Gangadas held some Udak grant in this village from Dadiji Sahiba. On the death of the Dadiji Sahiba, the sub-grants created by her lapsed and the property stood resumed to the State. Gangadas held two types of land one type was the garden land and the other type was ordinary land. The rent was started to be recovered on the resumption of this grant from the Dadiji by the State for the other land. For part of the land held by the petitioner Guru Gangadas it appears that Gangadas after incurring some expenditure laid out a gardan. The State Council did not consider it advisable to resume this garden land of the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to retain this garden on the payment of Rs. 101/- nazrana. For part of the land held by the petitioner Guru Gangadas it appears that Gangadas after incurring some expenditure laid out a gardan. The State Council did not consider it advisable to resume this garden land of the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to retain this garden on the payment of Rs. 101/- nazrana. This garden land at that time consisted of 20 bighas and 12 biswas as measured on the basis of the chain of 23 gattha. It has been clearly stated in that order as follows : ^^bl tehu dk 101@& utjkuk egUrth ls olwy djyks vkSj fQj tehu ckx dh ckcr~ eqtkger u djks vkSj ckdh tehu ftl dnj dCts esa eulvk o xSj eulvk og [kkylk rlCcqj djds gkfly gLc dk;nk olwy djrs jgsA 1-9-1903** It is on the basis of these words that the petitioner claims that the property became his personal property and he was not liable to the payment of rent in future. All the subordinate authorities have taken a different view and they pointed out that the rent was recovered from the petitioners in kind in the form of vegetables on this holding and therefore they came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay rent. From the above facts it is clear that the petitioners Guru, Gangadas held the Udak grant and when this grant came to be resumed without payment of compensation, at that time on the death of Dadiji it was but natural to impose liability of payment of rent on such resumed grant. This was done in the case of the ordinary land and while the matter was being enquired into whether the entire grant should be resumed or not, liability to pay rent was imposed, Rent in the form of vegetable in kind was recovered from the petitioners holding of garden. But the then Jaipur Govt. by their order 1-9-1903 in consideration of the petitioner having spent a sizable sum of money in establishing this garden allowed this garden to be retained by him on payment of Rs. 101/-. In the operative part of the order of the State Council referred to above it is clearly stated that no interference should be caused as far as the garden land was concerned, but as far as the other land was concerned, the petitioners ancestors would continue to pay rent. 101/-. In the operative part of the order of the State Council referred to above it is clearly stated that no interference should be caused as far as the garden land was concerned, but as far as the other land was concerned, the petitioners ancestors would continue to pay rent. This clearly means that the payment of rent on the garden land by the petitioners ancestors in kind in the form of vegetables was limited to the period between the resumption of the muafi on the death of Dadiji and the final orders passed in this connection by the Jaipur State Council on 1-9-1903. Thereafter the rent on the garden land in consideration of payment of Rs. 101/- by the petitioners ancestors Gangadas and for his having spent a sizable amount of money on laying this garden was totally remitted. It is an admitted fact and duly corroborated from the revenue record that no rent was ever paid by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the State from 1-9-1903 right upto the time of revised settlement in Smt. 2015. It is at this time that the settlement authorities sought to impose the rent on the garden holding on the ground that although it was jer kharid, it cannot escape from the liability of payment of rent. The law whether a rent should be paid on the holding or not is covered by sec. 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 which runs as follows : "90. Liability of all land to payment of revenue or rent—(1) Subject to other provisions of this Act all land, to whatever purpose applied and wherever situate is liable to the payment of revenue or rent to the State Government, except such land as has been wholly exempted from such liability by special grant of, or contract with the State Government, or by the provisions of any law for the time being in force." Thus the present law imposes a liability for payment of revenue or rent to the State Government on all land except where land has been wholly exempted by a special grant or contract with the State Government by the provisions of any law for the time being in force as referred to above. Clearly under the Jaipur law the State Government by their order of the Council dated 1-9-1903 wholly exempted the petitioners bagh (garden) holding from the liability to pay rent by entering into a contract in consideration of charging Rs. 101/- as nazrana and the fact that the petitioners ancestor spent some sizable amount of money in laying this garden. This act of the former State of Jaipur cannot now be challenged by any subordinate authorities. The present law does not provide that the rent would be charged on all holdings irrespective of the exemptions given by the former States from payment of rent. On the contrary sec. 90 clearly provides that the revenue or rent would stand remitted by special grant or contract with the State Government. It is a common knowledge that even Government can enter into a contract in accordance with the provisions of sec. 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act not to charge any rent from a tenant for a certain period in lieu of his investing some money on the improvement of land. Further this concession could be given by the Government as the law provides by special grant to exempt the tenant from the liability to pay rent for a certain period and for certain reasons. In view of these clear provisions of law and the exemption granted by the former State of Jaipur and the non-collection of rent for all the period from 1903 onwards, a clear case has been made out by the petitioner that he was not liable to the payment of rent on the garden land. All the subordinate authorities therefore in imposing this liability of rent ran into an manifest error of law in wrongly construing the order of the Jaipur State. They were carried away by a clause in that order that rent in kind was recovered from the petitioners ancestor on this garden land. I have stated above that this collection of rent was limited to the period prior to the passing of the order dated 1-9-1903 of the Jaipur State Council and after the resumption of the Udak grant of the Dadiji. This construction of the document has resulted in the issue of illegal orders by the subordinate authorities. I have stated above that this collection of rent was limited to the period prior to the passing of the order dated 1-9-1903 of the Jaipur State Council and after the resumption of the Udak grant of the Dadiji. This construction of the document has resulted in the issue of illegal orders by the subordinate authorities. For the reasons stated above, I accept the revision petition of the petitioner, quash the order of the authorities below and direct that no rent on the garden land holding consisting of 15 bighas 4 biswas contained in khata No. 78/1 of Gangadas Guru is payable until such time as the State Government may consider fit to revise the previous orders of the Jaipur State Council.