STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAO RAJA SARDAR SINGH

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 11-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
y, 
RAO RAJA SARDAR SINGH 
August 11, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
95 
Rajasthan Land Refornis and Resumption of Jagirs Act 1952 
(No. VJ of 
1952)-Ss. 46 and 47-The Act ousts the jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue 
Courts-·State claimed certain recoveries from the Jagirdar out of conzpensation 
payable to hbn-No proper account of dues produced-Jagir Commissioner 
rejected State's claim-State sought to recover dues under Ss. 229/257A of the 
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956-Recoveries if could be mclde. 
The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 which pro-
vides for the resumption of jagir lands and1 other measures of land reforms, con-
tains ai comprehensive scheme for the determination of the amount of dues and 
debts recoverable by the State from the Jagirdar in respect of the jagir 13:nds and 
their deduction from the amount of compensation payable to him. Sections 22 
A 
B 
c 
to 31 read' together provide for the continuance of the Jagirdar's liability to the 
payment of arrea•rs of revenue, cesses and other dues which were due from: him 
D 
in respect of the jagir lands for any period prior to the date of resumption of 
the jagir, out of the compensation payable to him. A duty has been cast on the 
jagirdar to n1entioo, in the statemf!ht of his claim for compensation the amount 
of dues and debts recoverable from him under s. 22( 1) (e). 
Section 32( I) 
n1akes it obliga.tory on the Jagir Commissioner to provisionally determine the 
amount of compensation recoverable from the Jagirdar under s. 22(1)(c) and 
serve a copy of the provisional order on the Government, the Jagirdar and E 
every other interested person. It is only after giving all of them a reasonable 
opportunity that the J agir Commissioner can m.ake a final order. The order so 
made under s. 32(2) would be final in respect of the amounts mentioned in it. 
Section 34 provides for the deduction of the amounts determined by the Com-
missioner, from the compensation payable to the Jagirdar under s. 26. Section 
35 deals with pa•yment of compensation. Section 39 provides for appe<i.ls against 
F• 
any de.cision of the Jagir Commissioner, to the Board of Revenue according to 
which the decision of the Board in the: appeal shall be final. Section 46 provides 
that no order made by any officer or authority under the Act shall be called in 
question in any civil or revenue court. 
Under the provisions of the Act, the lands belonging to the respondent, who 
was ai Jagirdar in the State of Rajasthan, vested in the State. \Vhen the Jagtr 
.. 
Commissioner took up the question of deciding the compensation payaOie to the 
G 
respondent, the State filed a claim that a certain amount was recoverable flom 
the compensation payable to the Jagirdar on account of revenue dues etc. liut 
since the Sta·te was not able to give a proper account of the due~. the Jagir Com-
1 
missioner made an order that the amount claimed by fue State could not be 
1 
deducted. The Board of Revenue dismissed the State GovenimenCs appeal and, 
therefore, the order of the Jagir Commissioner bocame final. 
In the meanwhile, when the Tehsildar sought to recover the dues from the 
respondent, he raised an objectioil' that since the J agir Comn1issioner's order 
became final the Government was not competent to claim that amount. 
The 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1979] I S.C.R. 
Tehsildar rejected the objection. In the respondent's appeal, the Board of Reve-· 
nue quashed the order of the Tehsildar on the ground that the State Governni~fit 
did not furnish the required particulars in spite of sever~l opporttinities gi v-en 
to it when the matter was before him and that the Jagir Commissioner waSi right 
in rejecting the claim of the State. lt also held that since his order became final, 
proceedings to have the recovery of the dues under the Land Revenue Act.. 
\Vere without jurisdiction. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State 9overnment. 
It held that the determination of the dues a·nd debts recoverable: by 
the State 
front the J2.girdar was a matter which was required to be settled by the .lagir 
Commissioner and that by virtue of s. 46 of the1 Act, a Civil or Revenue Court 
> 
had no jurisdiction in respect of it. 
On the question. whether the Jagir Commissioner's order was 
final anll 
whether any Civil or Revenue Court had jurisdiction to reopen it, a.s it related 
to a matt

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