Shri P.D. Kudal—The following question has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Honble single Member :— "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, can a jagirdar or muafidar, entered in column 4 of the Jamabandi or Settlement of Samvat 2006 of Bikaner State, though the lands not in his possession and cultivation and shown in Column 5 thereof as khatedars, on resumption of the jagir, claim compensation from the State as also from the tenant under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on the basis of such entries ? What will be the effect of two conflicting decisions on this issue ?" The brief facts of the cases are that Shri Sita Ram and others applied before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikaner against the different tenants Shri Jiva Ram and others for payment of compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on the allegations that khatedari rights have accrued to them. In support of these contentions (Shri Sita Ram has examined himself on oath and has produced the mutation order Ex. P/l on the basis of which the Gram Panchayat conferred khatedari rights on the tenants. Khasra girdawari from samvat 2010 to 2014 and from samvat 2014 to samvat 2017 have been produced. The statement of the opposite party has also been recorded. The applicant Sita Ram has stated that khatedari rights have accrued to the other side on the basis of the mutation order under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by the Gram Panchayat. He has also stated on oath that in the samvat year 2012, the applicants were khatedar tenants of the suit lands. The contention of the opposite party has been that applicants have already received compensation from the State Government on account of the resumption of their jagir under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act. It has been further contended that the opposite party has been cultivating the suit lands even prior to samvat 2010. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer decreed the applicants claim on 30th June, 1964 by awarding compensation to the extent of 15 times of lagan of the suit lands. The opposite party feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 14th May, 1965. The opposite parties feeling aggrieved have come up in revision before this court. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer decreed the applicants claim on 30th June, 1964 by awarding compensation to the extent of 15 times of lagan of the suit lands. The opposite party feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 14th May, 1965. The opposite parties feeling aggrieved have come up in revision before this court. Thus these are five revision petitions against a similar order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority comprising common questions of law and facts. These five revision petitions were considered by the learned single Member and he has been pleased to make a common reference as mentioned above in all the five revision petitions. As common questions of law and facts are involved, these five revision petitions are disposed of by a single order. In sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act it has been provided that every person claiming compensation on account of the accrual of the khatedari rights in respect of the land held from him by his tenant of khudkasht or sub-tenant shall submit a detailed statement of claim of such compensation to the Sub-Divisional Officer on the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner. The applicants before this court have been conferred with khatedari rights through the mutation order Ex. P/l, dated 5th May, 1960. From a perusal of Ex. P/l it would be evident that the original Khatedars were the applicants. Khatedari rights have been conferred upon the opposite parties by means of Ex. P/l. The payment of compensa-tion to a jagirdar on account of the resumption of his jagir is regulated by the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act. The Jagir commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the compensation payable to the jagirdar. Sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act deals with the question of payment of compensation on account of a loss of the khatedari rights of the original khatedar tenant, and conferment of the khatedari rights on the tenant of khudkasht or sub-tenant as the case may be. The provisions of sec. 19(4) are as follows :— "19(4)—Every tenant of Khudkasht or sub.tenant to whom rights accrue under sub-sec. (1) ( or sub-sec. The provisions of sec. 19(4) are as follows :— "19(4)—Every tenant of Khudkasht or sub.tenant to whom rights accrue under sub-sec. (1) ( or sub-sec. (1A) ) shall be bound to pay to his land holder compensation determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter : Provided that such tenant or sub-tenant may, within (Three years of the appointed date, intimate in writing to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction that he does not wish to khatedari rights on payment of such compensation, in which case he shall not acquire khatedari rights or be liable to pay compensation and he shall continue as tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant as heretofore ." It would thus be seen that the tenant of khudkast or the sub-tenant to whom khatedari rights have accrued is bound to pay compensation to his landholder. The procedure envisaged under sec 20 and sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is a summary procedure consequent to the liability having been incurred under sec. 19 (4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In the case of Shri Panna vs. Shri Khet Singh (1964 R.R.D. 136) it was held that an ex jagirdar who has already received compensation for the resumption of his jagir land is not debarred from claiming compensation in his capacity as a khatedar for khatedari rights acquired by subtenants under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In the case of Shri Bhura vs. Brijlal (1966 R.R.D. 1) it was held that compensation obtained under the Jagir Act by the Ex-jagirdar was no bar for receiving compensation for loss of khatedari rights. It was further held that furnishing of the copy of the record of rights for the relevant period was not obligatory and when such entry exists in the record of rights, payment of compensation is obligatory without any option. In the case of Shri Jaggu vs. Shri Chotu Singh (1966 R.R.D. 204) it was held that person holding two capacities as estate holder and khatedar or khudkasht holder is entitled to receive compensation if the subtenants acquired khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was further held that receipt of compensation under the Jagir Act was no bar to the receipt of this compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was further held that receipt of compensation under the Jagir Act was no bar to the receipt of this compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In 1966 I.L.R. (Raj.) 1105 (Puran Singh vs. The State) their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court were pleased to observe as under:— "We are of the view that the contentions raised in the writ petition involve disputed questions of fact which can appropriately be decided after proper investigation in a regular suit and cannot properly be determined by this court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. X X X X Sec. 24(1) of the Bikaner Tenancy Act dealing with the right of khatedar says:— A khatedar is a tenant who has right of cultivation and to continue possession of land which he or his ancestors has acquired and brought under cultivation as long as he regularly pays rent. XX X X Khudkasht rights are derived from cultivatory possession and not from the possession of the jagirdari rights. The possession over jagirdari rights cannot by itself confer khudkasht rights. Cultivatory possession means actual or physical possession. "Khudkasht" does not include the land recorded as "Khud Kabij" in settlement record. X X X X The tenant must be a person holding land under any person, and liable to pay rent to that other person. In this case, the vendors, from whom the petitioners purchased land were sansandars and had the same rights as jagirdars over their lands. They were, therefore, held not to be tenants or khatedar tenants when the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act came into force." The Honble single Member while making the reference also mentioned about the decision of this court in Revision Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 1965/Bikaner (State of Rajasthan vs. Harm man Singh, decided on 1-12-67). In these cases the learned court was concerned whether Khatedari rights had accrued to the applicants in the circumstances of those cases. This question did not arise before the learned court whether a jagirdar shall be entitled to a compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, consequent to the conferment of the khatedari rights on the tenant of khudkhasht or his sub tenant. This question did not arise before the learned court whether a jagirdar shall be entitled to a compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, consequent to the conferment of the khatedari rights on the tenant of khudkhasht or his sub tenant. It appears that the Honble single Member while making this reference examined the case in a totally different prespective of law. As a matter to fact, all those points on which a reference has been made do not at all arise in these revision petitions. It would be useful to make a reference to the mutation order Ex. P/l by the Gram Panchayat. The mutation order is dated 5th May, 1960. In column No. 5 which is meant for the khatedar cultivator the name of Sitaram and others has been entered. In column No. 11 the name of the persons on whom khatedari rights have been conferred have been mentioned. In remarks column No. 16 the report of the patwari is there that Khatedari rights may be conferred on jiaram etc. etc. under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This is followed by the orders of the Gram Panchayat dated 5th May, 1960. It would thus be seen that the accrual of the khatedari rights is a fact accomplished in these five cases. In the case of Puran Singh vs. State (1966 I.L.R. Raj. 1105) the question was whether Khatedari rights under the set of circumstances of the case will accrue or not. In the cases of State vs. Hanuman Singh (revision Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9/65/Bikaner, decided on 1-12-67), the question for determination was whether the mutation has been correctly effected in cases where the jagirdar has been entered either as khudkasht or as khudkabij. It was held therein that khatedari rights shall accrue where the jagirdar was a khudkasht holder but would not accrue where the jagirdar was a khudkabij. In the present cases under reference khatedari rights have already accrued by virtue of the order of the Gram Panchayat dated 5th May, 1960 Both the sides rely on the mutation order Exhibit P/1. The learned lower courts have concurrently held that the applicants are liable for payment of compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In the present cases under reference khatedari rights have already accrued by virtue of the order of the Gram Panchayat dated 5th May, 1960 Both the sides rely on the mutation order Exhibit P/1. The learned lower courts have concurrently held that the applicants are liable for payment of compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. None of the parties i.e. the applicant, the opposite party or the State has challenged the correctness or veracity of the order of Gram Panchayat dated 5-5-1960. The orders of the Gram Panchayat dated 5th May, 1960 have now become absolute and all the concerned parties are bound by it. To us, it appears that the applicants before us are now trying to blow hot and cold in the same breath. The applicants want to rely on Exhibit P/1 so far as the conferment of khatedari rights are concerned but the applicants are not prepared to accept Exhibit P/l so far as the question of liability of payment of compensation under sec. 19 sub-clause 4 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act arises, despite the fact that the applicants have at no stage challenged the conferment of khatedari rights on them by virtue of the mutation order Ex. P/l. The view taken by this court in 1964 R.R.D. 136, 1966 R.R.D. 1 and 1966 R.R.D. 204 only confirm the view that the receipt of compensation under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act, 1952 do not in any way bar the accrual of compensation by virtue of the provisions of sec. 19 sub.cl. 4 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The view taken by their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court (1966 I L.R. Raj, 1105) only makes a distinction between Khudkasht and khudkasht under the Bikaner Tenancy Act. This ruling does not lay down any preposition of law whereby it could be inferred that receipt of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act would bar the accrual of compensation under sec. 19 sub clause 4 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The four revision petitions decided by this court on 1st December, 1967 (revision petitions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9/65 Bikaner State vs. Hanuman Singh) only lay down that the mutation orders effected with respect to khudkabij and khudkasht lands would be justified in the case of khudkasht lands but not in the case of khudkabij lands. The four revision petitions decided by this court on 1st December, 1967 (revision petitions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9/65 Bikaner State vs. Hanuman Singh) only lay down that the mutation orders effected with respect to khudkabij and khudkasht lands would be justified in the case of khudkasht lands but not in the case of khudkabij lands. It would thus be seen that the preposition laid down by their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pooran Singh vs. State and by this court in the four revision petitions decided on 1st December, 1967 are not relevant for the disposal of the controversy in these cases If the applicants have taken the advantage of becoming khatedar tenants of the suit lands by virtue of Exhibit P/l (the mutation order) under sec 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, they cannot escape from the liability of payment of compensation incurred by them, by virtue of the mandatory provisions of sec. 19 sub-clause 4 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The khatedari has accrued to the applicants under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the liability to pay compensation has also arisen under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, so a reference to the provisions of the Bikaner Tenancy Act is not at all needed or called for. If this is allowed it would mean that the applicants are permitted to approbate and re-approbate according to their convenience Such actions of approbation and re-approbation cannot be permitted by any stretch of imagination. The liability to pay compensation u/s. 19 sub cl. 4 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is incidental to the accrual of Khatedari rights. The procedure for making an application and for determining the amount of compensation payable on accrual of the khatedari rights is laid down in secs 20 and 23 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The procedure envisaged is a summary one. Complicated questions of law and facts have got to be decided by institution of regular suits. For the reasons stated above we answer the reference in the following manner— "The payment of compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is incidental to the accrual of khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Complicated questions of law and facts have got to be decided by institution of regular suits. For the reasons stated above we answer the reference in the following manner— "The payment of compensation under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is incidental to the accrual of khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant is bound to pay to his landholder compensation determined in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III A. The receipt of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act) on account of resumption of jagir is no bar to the receipt of compensation which has accrued under the provisions of sec. 19 sub-clause 4 and sec. 20 of the Raj Tenancy Act. There is no conflict in the various decisions of the Board of Revenue and the Honble High Court in the cases referred to above. As a matter of fact the decision of the Honble High Court in the case of Pooran Singh vs. State and the decision of this court in the case of State vs. Hanuman Singh referred to above deal with totally different aspects of the case. In these cases the question was whether katedari rights shall accrue or not while in the present cases the khatedari rights have already accrued." The references accordingly answered.