BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN, AJMER & ORS. versus RAO BAL DEO SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 14-12-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
661 
A 
BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN, AJMER & ORS. 
v. 
RAO BAL DEO SINGH & ORS. 
December 14, 1967 
\ 
8 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RA.MASWAM! AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
I!. 
F 
G 
H 
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (Raj. 6 of 
1952), ss. 23, 37 and 47-Jagirdar claims land as 
klzudkhast-Jagir 
·Commissioner to determin.e-ss. 23 a.nf 37, Scope of. 
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs 
Rule" 1954 
rr. 23, 24 and 28-Hearing within less than 2 months, report ~ubmittid 
without giving nol'ices and without holding enquiry-Legali~ .. 
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (Raj. 15 of 1956) ss. 125 and 136--
Disputes regarding entrie~Land Record officer to decide but not Jagir-
dar's claim of lands as..Khudkhasht. 
The respondentwJagirdar, on the resumption of his 
jagir under the 
provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs 
Act, 1952, claimed certain agricultural lands as his Khudkhast land. The 
Divisional Commissioner accepted 
the 
recommendation made 
by the 
Collector and directed the Collector to enter the land as Khudkhast of 
the respondent. On appeal the Board of Revenue, remanded the ca-. to the 
Divisional Commissioner with a direction that he should refer the matter 
to the Jagir Commissioner. 
The Jagir Commissioner, held it to be the 
personal property of the respondent. 
The State appealed to the Board 
0f Revenue, which remanded the case to the J agir Commissioner to dis-
pose of the matter after proper enquiry in accordance. wi'h the provisions 
of Jagir Rules framed under the Act. 
Thereupon th~ respondent moved 
the High Court under Art. 226 of t.he Constitution and the High Court 
quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue holding that no enquiry 
under s. 23(2) of the Act was necessary and it required disposal in ac-
cordance with the procedure laid down in Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 
1956 regarding the correction of the entries. 
In appeal, to this Court, 
the appellants contended that (i) the dispute related essentially to the 
character of he properties, and therefore the Jagir Commiss'oner had 
the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question; and (ii) the Board . 
of Revenue was right in remanding the case the secon.d time, as rr. 23, 
24 and 28 of the Jagir Rules. 1954 were not followed inasmuch as the 
date of hearing was fixed within less than 2 months of the 
receipt of 
the order and report was submitted to the J agir Commissioner without 
giving dhe notices and without holding the enquiry. 
· 
HELO : The appeal must be allowed. 
(i) The dispute in this case was essentially as to the character of th~ 
property claimed by respondent as khudkbasht and fell directly witj)i.ti 
the purview of s. 23 of the Act and therefore the Jagir Commissioner was 
the exclusive authority to hold triquiry into· the dispute and give a decision 
thereon. [670 CJ . 
• . 
Reading s. 23 of the Act in the contC>it of ss. 46 and 4 7 of the Act 
it is manifest that an exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon the Jagir 
· Commissioner to decide the question ·as to,
0 whether any propenty of the 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1968] 2 S.CR 
Jagirda'r is of the nature of khudkasht and the decision of the Jagir Com-
missio·ner on this question is final and cannot be challenged collateraJly 
in a Civil or R·ovcnue Court. lt is true that ss. 125 and 136 of the 
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act confer power on the Land Records Officer 
to decide disputes with regard to the entri~s in the record of rights or 
in the annual registers, as the case may be. 
Bru: neither the Land Records 
Officer nor any other Rev·onue Courts contemplated by 
the Rajasthan 
Land Reven.ue Act have jurisdiction to enquire into the question whci:her 
the property claimed by the Jagirdar is khudkhasht within the meaning 
of s. 23 of the Act. 
The reason is tha>'. the Rajasthan Land Reforms 
and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 is a special Act and the general 
maxim is that a subse.quen!" General Act does not affect a pror srccial · 
Act by implication,-genera/ia sepcia/ibus non derogant. [670 F-H; 67 l AJ, 
A 
B 
Section 23 of the Act is independent of s. 37 of the Act as it deals; 
'"l 
with an enquiry of the nature of the property mentioned in s. 23 ( 1) 
C 
and it. has nothing to do with the question of determining the right, title 
or interest of the. Jagirdar in the land. 
Section 23 cn1powers the Jagir 
Commissioner to determine the character of the properties clain1cd by 
the Jagirdar as Khudkhasht for det

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.