Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 7 (RAJ)

Damodarlal v. State

1966-01-18

G.B.K.HOOJA, GAJENDRA SINGH

body1966
Damodarlal claimant appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Dy. Collector Jagir Alwar dated 23.11.1962 passing the final award in the claim for compensation for his resumed jagir. The only contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the appellant had held a reja muafi in village Sohawa, Tehsil Alwar consisting of 9 bighas. The land revenue of this biswedari village was, no doubt settled, but no rent between the biswedar and his tenant was ever settled. The Dy. Collector, Jagir, instead of allowing the rental income of Rs. 60/- (chakota) in this jagir land allowed only Rs. 14.50, which was the land revenue assessed on his holding, as the rental income of his jagir. The counsel, therefore, urged that his jagir, though resumed on 1.3.1960, was clearly unsettled and the rental income should have been assessed under sec. 7 of the Jagir Act, on the basis of three relevant years rental income. In any case, the counsel for the appellant argued that, on the basis of the Full Bench decision in Shiv Narain vs. The State of Rajasthan in appeal No. 31 Bhilwara of 1962, his client was entitled to a fixed sum of money as the income accruing from rent in the basic year, which was Rs. 60/- per annum. The reply of the Government Advocate was that the term "settled" is defined in the Jagir Act, u/sec.2, sub-sec.(4) and where 3/4th of the village is settled, it should be considered as settled. The appellant was only entitled to the rental income, based on settled rate. In the alternative, if the benefit of the principle of law decided in Full Bench case of Shiv Narain vs. The State referred to above is to be given to the appellant, he should be paid rental income under sec. 99 of the Tenancy Act so that it should not exceed twice the amount payable by the tenant because the appellant could claim on the legal rent and not the rent actually paid by his tenant to him. We have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and have perused the record. The jagir was resumed on 1.3.60. Therefore, the basic year of this jagir for purposes of the determination of the rental income was agricultural year 1959-60. We have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and have perused the record. The jagir was resumed on 1.3.60. Therefore, the basic year of this jagir for purposes of the determination of the rental income was agricultural year 1959-60. By that time, the Tenancy Act had already come into force and by virtue of the provisions made in Chapter IX of the aforesaid Act, it had fixed the maximum limits of rent, payable by a tenant to a land-holder, as legal rent. The question, therefore which remains to be decided is whether the jagir of the appellant was settled or not. It was, no doubt, resumed on 1.3.1960 and it is clear from the record that before the jagir was resumed, it was held in biswedari tenure and only land revenue payable to the State was settled. No rent was settled between the biswedar and the tenants. Under the term Settled" given in sec. 2 sub-sec. (n) of the Jagir Act, 1952, it is clear that a settled village means that village or area to which the rent rates determined during settlement operations have been made applicable whether prospectively or retrospectively. There is nothing on record to show that the settlement authorities had determined the rent rates for this jagir village in which the compensation has been claimed by the appellant. The only thing settled according to the record before us is the revenue payable by the appellant to the State, which of course, stood "assigned to him. Thus, according the definition of the terms settled village given in the jagir Act, we are clearly of the opinion that this jagir land was unsettled at the time of resumption. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the Deputy Collector Jagir, no doubt, to apply the provisions of sec. 7 of the Jagir Act for the determination of the rental income but this has not been done. Besides, this jagir village being a village of lower income group, was exempted from payment of land revenue under the provisions contained in Chapter II of the Jagir Act, which relate to the assessment of jagir land to land revenue. Before this land revenue is determined the provisions laid down in the aforesaid Act enjoin upon the Collector to determine the rental income of the Jagirdar. Under sec. Before this land revenue is determined the provisions laid down in the aforesaid Act enjoin upon the Collector to determine the rental income of the Jagirdar. Under sec. 8 of the aforesaid Act, no land revenue is payable by a jagir which is below Rs. 500/- per annum. Thus, this Jagir land belonging to the lower income group was clearly exempted from the payment of its land revenue. Its land revenue was fixed at Rs. 14.50 as admitted. It was perhaps for this reason that the rental income of this jagir land was not determined by the Collector Alwar in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter II of the Jagir Act. It is proved beyond doubt that the appellant was receiving Rs. 60/- as a fixed sum of money by way of rent from his holding from his tenants as Chakota rent. He is no doubt, in accordance with the proviso to clause Schedule 2 of the Jagir Act entitled to this rental income, notwithstanding the provisions contained in clause 3 of the IInd Schedule regarding the calculation of income from rent in accordance with the provisions of secs. 6 and 7 of the Jagir Act. This interpretation of the law has found favour in Full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue in the case of Shiv Narain vs. The State of Rajasthan as referred to above. But so far as its operation for the determination of rental income is concerned, the aforesaid judgment has laid down that only legal rent is admissible to a claimant jagirdar, i. e. the rent which is payable under the provisions contained in Chapter IX of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The question therefore, which now remains to be decided is what provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act would apply to this case. The counsel for the appellant has rightly argued that sec. 98 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which runs as follows would apply to this case: "98. Maximum rent—Where land revenue is settled. The question therefore, which now remains to be decided is what provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act would apply to this case. The counsel for the appellant has rightly argued that sec. 98 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which runs as follows would apply to this case: "98. Maximum rent—Where land revenue is settled. In areas where land revenue is settled the rent is payable by a tenant in cash, the maximum rent recoverable by an estate-holder shall be prescribed by the State Government keeping in view the amount of land revenue and other agricultural conditions and shall not be more than three times the amount of such land revenue." In this case the land revenue of this holding resumed from the possession of the appellant was settled at Rs. 14.50. The tenants of the appellant as estate-holder were paying rent to him in cash. Therefore, the appellant is only entitled to three times the amount of such land revenue from the tenants which is the maximum which can be prescribed by the State Government. The Government Advocate, however suggested the application of sec. 99 of Tenancy Act, which relates to the maximum rent in areas where rent has been setted, but no rent has been fixed between the tenant and his sub-tenants. In that case, the aforesaid section lays down that the maximum rent recoverable by a tenant from his sub-tenant shall be prescribed by the State Government so as not to exceed twice the amount payable by such tenant. Here, in this case, no rent has been settled and the question of sub-tenancy does not arise. Therefore, sec. 99 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has no application to this case. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that the appellants rental income should have been fixed under sec. 98 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for the simple reason that the land revenue was settled and the rent was not settled between the tenant and the estate-holder. The maximum rent to which the appellant is now entitled, under the head rental income, is three times the land revenue i.e. Rs. 14.50 which comes to Rs. 43.50 only. We, therefore, accept the appeal of the appellant, modify the order of the Dy. Collector, Jagir Alwar and direct that the rental income of the appellant from his resumed reja muafi at Rs. 43.50 and his award be modified accordingly.