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

- **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 661
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-12-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 454 of 1965
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ra.Maswam!, V. Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/board-of-revenue-for-rajasthan-ajmer-ors-v-rao-bal-deo-singh-ors-4264
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

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 Jagirdar'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 dispose 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 accordance 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 Commissio·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.

## Text

'
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 Jagirdar'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 dispose 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 accordance 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 Commissio·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 determination of the compensation to be
paid and determining other questions which are incidern~al to the, resumption of the Jagir land., On the o'her hands. 37 of the Act deals with questions of disputed titles and with r~ga'.rd to such a question the section make~
a provision for enquiry cjther by the Jagir Commissioner or by a revenue
D
authority under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It is manifest
that the scope of s. 37 is quite different from that of s. 23 and the nature
of the enquiry contemplated by the two sections also is different. f67 l E-Gf
Barker v. EdRer [1898] A.C. 748, referl"'-Ai to.
(ii) The Board of Revenue was right in taking the vic'v that the Jagir
Commissioner should have followed the procedure prcscrilled by tl1"
statutory rules. [673 F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 454 of
1965.
Appeal from the Judgment and order
October
7,
1963
of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.
482 of 1962.
M. C. Chagla, K. B. Mehta and lndu Soni, for the appellants.
R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwa!a, Shivpujan Singh
and Anil Kumar Gupta, for the respondents.
E
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
Ramaswami, J.
This appeal is brought, by certificate, from
the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963
in D. B. Civil Writ Petition no. 482 of 1962. By its judgment
the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents
and quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue dated July 24,
1959, April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962.
H
The jagir of respondent no. 1, Rao Bal Deo Singh was resumed with effect from August 15, 1954 under the provisions of the
,_
A
=•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HO,\Rll OF REVENUE \', BAL DEO SINGH (Ramaswami, J.)
663
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952
(Act no. VI of 1952), hereinafter referred ,to as the '.Act'.
A
notice was issued by the Collector, Bikaner to respondent no. 1,
on August 23, 1954 asking him to hand over the charge oi the
jagir but respondent no. 1 did not comply with the notice as he
had filed a writ application in the High Court challenging the
validity of the Act. A subsequent notice was issued to respondent
no. 1, by the Collector on May 14, 1955 directing him to hand
over charge of the jagir. Respondent no. 1 actually handed over
charge of the jagir on September 27, 1955 and at the same time
submitted a list of his private properties under s. 23 of the Act.
In the said list was included 5490 bighas and odd of agricultural
land in villages Mirgarh, Anandgarh and Rawla in Ganganagar
district and Anupgarh in Bikaner district which respondent no. 1
claimed as his khudkasht land. On March 18, 1957 respondent
no. l made an application to the Tahsildar, Anupgarh to correct
entries in the revenue records and to show the area claimed by
him as his khudkasht land. After an enquiry the Tahsildar, Anup.
garh forwarded th~ application to the Assistan: Collector, Ganganagar recommending the correction of the entries as prayed for
by respondent
no. I. The Assistant Collector
forwarded the
papers to tbe Collector, Ganganagar who recommended to the
Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. that the correction of entries
may be made. By his order dated November 30, 1958 the Divi·
sional Commissioner, Bikaner accorded sanction and directed the
Collector to enter the disputed lands in the revenue records as
khudkash\ lands ·of respondent no. L On appeal to the Board of
Revenue the case was remanded to the Divisional Commissioner
on July 24, l 959 with a direction that he should refer the matter
to the fagir Commissioner and till his decision was received the
entries in the revenue record should not be altered.
It appears
that th~ record of the case was transmitted for compliance to the
Sub-Divisio11al Officer, Raisinghnagar by the office of' the Commissioner of Bikaner, who, after making an enquiry, submitted his
recommendation to the· Jagir Commissioner instead of sending it
to the Divisional Commissioner to correct the relevant entries.
Meanwhile, the Director of Colonisation came to know of the
proceedings which were going on and therefore he addressed a
~ctter on December 22, 1958 to the Divisional Cpmmissioner,
Bikancr to review his order dated November 30. 1958 and reques'.ed him to refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner who wa~
the only competent authority to detennine the nature of the disputed property under s. 23(2) of the Act. On receipt of the said
letter the Divisional Commissioner reviewed his previous order
of November 30, 1958 and ultimately dismissed the objections of
Director of Colonisation on March 5, 1959. It appears that the
Additional Jagir Commissioner after receiving the paners from the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar also decided the matter on
•
•
664
SUPREME C(>URT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C. R
Oc10bcr 5, 1959 holding that tho disputed land should be treated
as the personal property of the ex-Jagirdar of Sattasar. The State
of Rajasthan preferred appeals to the Board of Revenue against
the orders of the Commissioner, Bikaner dated March 5, 1959 and
against the order of the Additional J_agir Commissioner dated
October 5, 1959. By its judgment dated July 24, 1959 the Board
of Revenue set aside the order of the Commissioner of Bikaner
and directed hint to decide the case after referring the matter to
the Jagir Commissioner for determining the nature of the property
under s. 23(2) of the Act. By its order dated April 8, 1960 the
Board of Revenue quashed the order of the Additional Jagir
Commissioner and remanded the case to hint with the direction
that he should dispose of the matter after proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the Act
Respondent no. I preferred a Teview against the order of the
Board of Revenue dated April 8, 1960 but the review petition was
dismiSSC"-0 by the Board of Revenue on July 16, 1962. Respondent
no. 1 thereafter moved the High Court of Rajasthan for the grant
of a writ under Art. 226 -Of the Constitution.
By its judgment
dated October 7, 1963 the Rajasthan High Court allowed the Writ
Petition and quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue dated
July 24, 1959, April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962, holding that no
enquiry under s. 23(2) of the Act was n~essary in the case and
the matter required to be disposed in accordance with ·the proce4ure laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act
no. 15 oi 1956) regarding the correction of entries.
The High
Court accordingly directed that the Board of Revenue may either
itself dispose the appeal if no further material was required for
tho purpose or may pass such orders which the circumstances required for final disposal of the case.
It is necessary at this stage to set out the. provisions of the
relevant statutes.
On February 13, 1952 the Rajasthan Legislature enacted the Act to provide for the resumption of jagir lands.
Under s. 21 of the Act the Government of Rajastban was empowered to issue a notification appointing a date for the resumption of any class of jagir lands and under s. 22 of the Act the
right, title and interest of the Jagirdar in his jagir lands stood
resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances as from
the date of resumption notified under s. 21.
Section 23 of the
Act, however, provided that the khudkasht lands of the jagirdar
shall be continued to be held by the jagirdar. Section 23 states :
"23. Private lands, buildings, wells, house sites and
enclosures.-(!) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the last preceding section-
(a) Khudkasht lands of a Jagirdar;
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BOARD OF REVENUE v. BAL DEO SINGH (Ramaswami, 1.)
665
A
(b) (i) all open enclosures used for agricultural or
domestic purposes and in his contimious possession
(which includiiig possession of any predecessor-in-interest) for six: years immediately before the date of resumption;
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(ii)
(iii) all private buildings, places of worship,
and wells situated in, and trees stm.ding
on lands,
included in such enclosures or
house-sites, as are specified in clause (i)
above, or land appertaining to such buildings or places of worship;
(iv) au groves and fruit trees wherever situate,
belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any
other person;
(c) all private wells and buildings belonging to or
held by the J agirdar or any other person;
(d) all tanks in the personal occupation of the Jagirdar and not used for irrigating the lands of any tenant
in the jagir land;
shall continue to belong to or be held by such Jagirdar
or other person :
(2) If any question arises whether any property is
of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), it shall be
referred to the Jagir Commissioner, who may, after holding the prescribed enquiry, 1Ilake such order thereon as
he deems fit."
Section 2(i) defines 'Khudkasht' to mean "any land cultivated personally by a jagirdar and includes :
(i) any land recorded as
khudkasht, Sir, or Hawala in settlement records; and (ii) any l!llld
allotted to a J agirdar as khudkasht under Chapter IV". Section
37 reads as follows :
"37. Question of title.-(1) If in the course of a
proceeding under this ,Act any question relating to title,
right or interest in any jagir land, other than a question
as to any khudkasht land or the correctness or otherwise
of any entry relating thereto in s~ttlenient records or as
to any boundary, map, field-book, record of rights or
annual register or as to any Wazib-ul-arz or Dasturganwai or any other settlement paper lawfully prepared
or as. to the correctness or otherwise of any entry made
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
therein or a question
referred to in section 3 of the
A
Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation)
Act, 1955, arises and the question so arising has not already been determined by a comperent authority, the
J agir Commissioner shall proceed to make an inquiry
into the merits of the question so arising and pass such
orders thereon as he deems fit.
B
· (2) Every question Ieferred to in section 3 of the
Rajasthan Jagir Decision and Proceedings (Validation)
Act, 1955 shall be inquired into and decided by a
revenue officer or court declared by the provisions of
the said Act competent to do so.
(3) Every other question excluded by sub-section
(I} from the jurisdiction of the Jagir Commissioner shall
be inquired into and decided by a revenue officer or court
competent to do so under the provisions of the Rajasthan
Land Revenue Act, 1956 or the Rules made thereunder.
(4) If any such question as is referred to in subsections (2) and (3) arises in the course of a proceedipg
under this Act, the Jagir Commissioner shall refer it for
inquiry and decision of the court competent to do so
and shall be bound by, and act according to such decision.n
Section 46 provides :
"Bar of Jurisdiction.-( I )Save as otherwise provided
in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any mntter which is required to be
settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority
under this Act.
(2) No order made by any such officer or authority
under this Act shall be called in question in any Court,"
Section 4 7 states :
"Act to override other laws.--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act
and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall have
effect notwithstandin,g any thing therein contained being
inconsistent with any existing Jagir law or any other
law for the time being in force."
Rules 22, 23, 24, 26 and 28 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms
and Resumption
of Jagir Rules, 1954
are to the
following
effect :
·
"22. Submission of list of personal properties by
Jugirdars.-{ I) The Jagirdar shall submit to the officers
taking over such charge a list of the properties which he
c
D
E
F
G
]I
{
BOARD OF REVENUE v. BAL DEO SINGH (Ramaswami, J.
667
A
claims as his private and personal properties under subsection (1) of section 23 of the Act.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2) Copies of such list shall be annexed with the
reports submitted under rule 21 of sub-rule (3).
(3) If the officer· taking over such charge is .of the
opinion that any item of property included in the list
submitted under sub-rule ( 1) is not the property which
the jagirdar is entitled to hold under sub-section (1) of
section 23 of the Act, he shall record reasons for such
opinion and refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner
under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act. While·
making the report under rule 21, sub-rule (3), a copy of
such reference shall be forwarded to the Government
as well as to the Collector. of the District in which the
property in dispute is situated :
Provided that where the officer deputed to take over
charge of a jagir is below the rank of Tehsildar he mall
submit his opinion to the Tehsildar concerned -who shall
refer the same 'with
his opinion to . the J agir
Commissioner.
(4) A copy of such list shall also be affixed on the
notice board of the Tehsil concerned, and the Municipal
Board or Village Panchayat concerned shall be informed
that they may see the list in the Tehsil and submit their
objections, if any, to the inclusion of any property or
part of it in the list to the Tehsildar within a specified
time.
(5) The Tchsildar may extend the time specified by
him under sub.-rule (4), if he is satisfied that there are
sufficient grounds for doing so and shall submit tbe objections received from the Municipal Board or the Panchayat with his opinion to the Jagir
Commissio~·
through the Collector."
"23. Inquiry by Jagir Commissioner in the matter
of personal properties -( 1) Upon receipt of a reference·
under the last preceding rule, or where he decides to
review the list on his own motion, the Jagir Commissioner shall appoint a date for holding an inquiry into
the matter. Such date shall not b\" less than two months
from the date of the order and a public notice thereof
shall be issued within a week of such order.
(2) Instead of holding the enquiry himself under·
sub-rule (1) the Jagir Commissioner may entrust the enquiry to any officer not below the rank of an Assi_stant
Jagir Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer."
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] 2 S.C.R
"24. Notice how to be served.-(!) The notice given
under rule 23 shall be served on the Jagirdar concerned,
the Revenue Secretary to the Government and the Collc;ctor of. the district in wh ic.h the property in dispute i~
Situated m the manner provided for the service of summons on a defendant in a suit under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
(2) Copies of the notice shall be sent to the Tehsildar
within whose
jurisidiction the property in dispute is
sitrated :-
(a) for being proclaimed
by beat of drum to the
A
B
inhabitants
of the locality where such property
is
c
situated;
(b) for being exhibited at some conspicuous place in
such locality; and
(c) for being posted, thereafter on the notice board
of the Tehsil."
"26. Who may contest.-(!) The State shall be represented at such inquiry by the Collector 01 any other
Officer not below the rank of a Naib Tehsildar as the
Collector may by order in writing appoint in that behalf.
(2) If any inhabitants of the locality irt which the
pmperty in dispute is situated are in any manner interested therein, they may contest ihe claim of tlie Jagirdar
in respect thereof and may jointly appoint one or more
persons not exceeding three in number to represent them
at such inquiry."
"28. Mode of inquiry regarding personal properties.-The Jagir Commissioner or the officer holding the
inquiry shall allow the Jagirdar, the State and the inhabitants of the locality desiring to contest the claim of the
J agirdar reasonable oppartunity to prove or disprove
their respective contenhons. The enquiry shall be held
in the manner provided for the trial of a suit by a
Revenue Court. and where the enquiry has been held by
any officer other than the Jagir Commissioner such
officer shall submit the record with a report of his findings to the Jagir Commissioner for his orders."
Section J 22 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, I 956 provides
as follows:
"I 22. Attestation of entries and decision of disputes.-All undisputed entries in the record of rights shall
l>e attested by the parties interested,
and all dispute.s
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BOARD OF REVENUE v. BAL DEO SINGH (Ramaswami, J.)
669
regarding such entries, whether taken up by the Land
Records Officer of his own motion or upon application
by any party interested, shall be disposed of by him in
accordance with the provisions of sections 123, 124
and 125."
Section 125 is to the following effect :
"125. Settlement of disputes as to entries in record
of rights.-(!) All other disputes regarding entries on
the record of rights shall be decided on the basis of
possession.
(2) If in the course of inquiry into a dispute under
this section the Land Records Officer is unable to satisfy
himself as to which party is in possession, he shall ascertain by summary enquiry who is the person best entitled to possession and shall decide the dispute accordingly.
(3) No order as to possession passed under this section shall debar any person from establishiiig his right
to the property in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction."
Section 136 reads :
"136. Decision of disputes.-All disputes respecting
the class or tenure of any tenant or regarding the rent or
revenue payable or regarding entries in the annual registers shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 123 or section 124 or section 125, as
the case may be."
On behalf of the appellants Mr. M. C. Chagla put forward
the argument that the High Court erred in law in holding that
the dispute in the present case merely related to the correction of
entries envisaged in ss, 122. to 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act, 1956 and as such the Revenue Authorities were competent
to order correction of such entries.
It was submitted that the
question as to whether the land claimed by respondent No. 1 was
khudkasht land within the meaning of s. 23(l)(a) read ·with s.
2( i) of the Act was a matter which the Jagir Commission alone
could determine under s. 23(2) of the Act and the jurisdiction of
other authorities
was completely barred.
The
argument was
stressed that the dispute between the parties was essentially a
dispute relating to the character of the properties claimed to be
k:hudkasht by respondent No. 1 and therefore the Jagir Commissioner had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine that question
under s. 23(2) of the Act. It is true that respondent No. l had
applied for correction of entries in the revenue records but the
correction of revenue records really depended upon the deter- ,
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] 2 S.C.R
mination of the character of the disputed property and unle's it
was held b_y competent authority under the Act that the property
was khudkasht land of the Jagirdar the application of respondent
no. I for the correction of the revenue entries could not be decided
by the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of the Rajasthan
Land Revenue Act.
To put it differently, the argument of the
appellants was that the real question that arose for determination
was whether the disputed land was khudkasht under s. 23( I) of
the Act and by taking recourse to the provisions of the Rajasthan
Land Revenue Act respondent no. I could not oust the jurisdiction of the Jagir Commissioner for determination of the dispute.
Jn our opinion the argument put forward by Mr. M. C. Chagla
on behalf of the appellants is well-founded and must be accepted
as correct. The dispute in this case is essentially as to the character of the property claimed by respondent no. I as khudkasht and
falls directly within the purview of s. 23 of the Act and therefore
the Jagir Commissioner is the exclusive authority to hold enquiry
into the dispute and give a decision thereon. The language of s.
23 of the Act is peremptory in character.and the section requires
that if any question arises whether any property is of the nature
referred to in suh-s. (I), it shall be referred to the Jagir Commissioner, who may, after holding the prescribed enquiry, make 'uch
order thereon as he deems fit.
Section 46 of the Act relates to
bar of jurisdiction and states that no Civil or Revenue Court shall
have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be
settled, decided or dealt with by any officer OF authority under
the Act. The section makes further provision that no order made
by any such officer or authority under the Act shall be called in
question in :•ny- Court.
Section 47 expressly states that the provisions of the Act and of the rules and orders mad-: thcrcu'lder
shall have efkct notwithstanding anything therein contained l:>ein!;
inconsisfent with any existing Jagir law or any other law for the
time being in force.
Reading s. 23 of the Act in the context of
ss. 46 and 4 7 of the Act it is manifest that an cxclusiw jurisdiction
is conferred upon the Jagir Commissioner to decide th~ question as
to whether any property of the Jagirdar is of the natur~ of khudkasht and the decision of the Jagir Commissioner on this question
is final and cannot be challenged collaterallv in a Civil or Revenue
Court.
It is true that ss. 125 and 136 of the Raiasthan Land
Revenue Act confer power on the Land Records Officer to decide
disputes with regard to the entries in the record of rights or in the
annual registers, as the case may be. But neither the Land Records
Officer nor :1ny
other Revenue
Courts contemplated by the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act have jurisdiction to enquire into the
question whether the property claimed by the Ja~irdar is khudka~ht within the meaning of s. 23 of the Act. The reason is that
the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Ja~irs Act, 1952
is a special Act and the general maxim is that a subsequent GeneB
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BOARD OF REVENUE v. BAL DEO SINGH (Ramaswami, J.)
671
ral Act does not affect a prior special Act by implicatioi;.;--Gene·
ralia specialibus non derogant.-"When the legislature has .given
its attention to a separate subject and made provision for it, the
presumption is that a subsequent general enactment is not intended
to interfere with the special provision unless it manifests that intention very clearly. Each enactment must be construed in that respect according to its own subject-matter and its own terms."
(Barker v. Edger)('). We are accordingly of the opinion that an
enquiry under s. 23(2) of the Act was necessary in this case and
that the Board of Revenue was right in taking the view that the
matter should be referred to the Jagir Commissioner for determining the nature of the property under s. 23(2) of the Act and
only after his decision is receiv.ed s!iould the Commissioner, Biisancr
take up the question with regard to the correction of entries under
the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. We consider that the order of
the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959 is based on a correct.
interpretation of the law and the High Court of Rajasthan was in
error in setting aside.that order.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended. that s. 23 of
the Act must be read along with s. 3 7 and since the Jagir Commissioner is not given any authority under s. 3 7 to make any enquiry with regard to the khudkasht land of the Jagirdar it must be
held that under s. 23 of the Act also the Jagir Commissioner had
no jurisdiction to make such an enquiry. In our. opinion, there
is no justification for this argument. In our view, s. 23 of the Act
is independent of s. 3 7 of the Act as it deals with an enquiry of
the nature of the property mentioned ins. 23(1) and it has nothing
to do with the question of determining the right, title or interest of
the Jagirdar in the land.
Having regard to the scheme and pur·
pose of the Act it is manifest that s. 23 empowers the Jagit Commissioner to determine the character of the properties claimed by
the Jagirdar as khudkasht for determination of the compensation
to be paid and determining other questions which are incidental to
the resumption of the jagir land. On the other hand, ~· 37 of the
Act deals with questions of disputed titles and with regard to such
a question the section makes a provision for enquiry either by
the Jagir Commissioner or by a revenue authority under the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It is manifest. that the scope
of s. 37 is quite different from that of s: 23 and the nature of the
enquiry contemplated by the two sections also is different.
As
we have already pointed out, the question arising in the present
case fa)ls directly within the ambit of s. 23 of the Act and the
Jagir Commissioner ;ilone has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine that question.
It was objected on behalf of the respondents that, in any case,
the question cannot be determined by the Jagir Commissioner after
(1) (1898] A.C. 748.
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 s.c.R.
the resumption procCedings had come to an end. It was said that
after the proceedings for resumption were completed under the
Act and award of compensation has been made, there is no jurisdiction left in the J agir Commissioner to proceed with an enquiry
under s. 23 ( 2) of the Act. For the purpose of tl.iis case it is not
necessary for us to express any opinion as to whether the Jagir
Commissioner has jurisdiction to make an enquiry under s. 23(2)
of the Act after the proceedings for resumption have come to a
close. It appears that in the present case the Director of Colonisation addressed a letter to the Divisional Commissioner, Bih.ner on
December 22, 1958 for review of his order dated November 30,
1958 and that he also requested that the matter should be referred
to the Jagir Commissioner as he was the only competent authority
to determine the nature of the disputed property under s. 23(2) of
the Act.
On receipt of this letter the Divisional Commissioner.
Bi.kaner reviewed his previous order of November 30, 1958 and
dismissed the objections of Director of Colonisation on March
5, 1959.
It is admitted that the final award was made by the
Additional Jagir Commissioner with regard to compensatior. on
January 20, 1959. We shall assume in favour of the respondents
that the proceedings for resumption came to a close on January
20, 1959.
Even on that assumption the dispute was raised by
the Director of Colonisation on December 22, 1958, Jong before
the date of the final award on January 20. 1959 and the Jagir
Commissioner had jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry under
s. 23(2) of the Act since the proceedings for resumption were still
pending. We are accordingly of the opinion that Counsel for the
respondents is unable to make good his argument on this aspect
of the case.
We proceed to consider the next question arising in this case,
viz. whether the High Court was in error in setting aside the orders
of the Board of Revenue dated April 8, 1960 and July 16, 1962.
The Board of Revenue has pointed out that the decision of the
Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5, 1959 was illegal
since be did not follow the procedure contemplated by Rules 23
and 26 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir
Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').
It appears
that by its previous order dated July 24, 1959 the Board of
Revenue h~d set aside the orders of the Divisional Commissioner
dated November 30, 1958 and March 5, 1959 and the matter
was remanded to him with the direction to refer the matter to the
Jagir Commissioner anci till the decision of the Jagir Commissioner
wlS received entries in the records should stand as they stood
prior to the impugned orders.
In compliance with this decision
the record was transmitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ganganagar by the office of the Commissioner. Bikaner who in tum sent
them on August 24, 1959 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar.
The letter reached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisingh·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
BOARD OF REVENUE v. BAL DEO SINGH (Ramaswami, I.)
673
nagar on August 29, · 1959 and on it the Sub-Divisional Officer
wrote down the following order : "Received today, inform the
parties to appear before me on 5-9-59" :
It appears that on
September 5, 1959 Shri Murlidhar and Shri Sada Nand appeared
before the Sub-Divisional Officer, statements of 5 persons were
recorded and arguments were heard and the case was directed to
be put up for writing out the report on September 9, 1959. On
this date the Sub-Divisional Officer wrote out the report and forwarded the papers to the Additional Jagir Commissioner.
On
October 1, 1959, the Additional Jagir Commissioner heard the
arguments of the parties and pronounced his decision on October
5, 1959. The Board of Revenue has pointed out that under Rule
23 a date not less than 2 months from the date of the order should
have been fixed for hearing of the case and published notice
should have been served not only on the Jagirdar but also upon the
Revenue Secretary to the Government and the Collector of the
district. Rule 28 states that the mode of inquiry was that provided for the trial of a suit by a Revenue court. The Sub-Divisional
Officer instead of following the rules fixed the date of hearing
within a week of the receipt of the order and within further 5
days submitted his report without giving the notices under Rules
23 and 24 and without holding the enquiry in the manner prescribed by Rule 28. The Board of Revenue accordingly set aside
the order of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated October 5,
1959 and remanded the case back to him with the direction that
he should hold the ~nquiry himself or may entrust the enquiry
under the provisions of s. 23(2) of the Act to a Subordinate Officer
and that the enquiry must be held in either case in accordance
with law and the case should be decided thereafter afresh. In our
opinion, the Board of Revenue was right in taking the view that
the Additional Jagir Commissioner should have followed the procedure prescribed by the statutory rules and the High Court had
no justification for setting aside the order of the Board of Revenue
dated April 8, 1960 and of July 16, 1962.
For the reasons expressed we hold that the order of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 7, 1963 quashing the orders of
the Board of Revenue dated July 24, 1959, April 8, 1960 and
July 16, 1962 should be set aside and Civil Writ Petition No. 482
of 1962 filed by the respondents should be dismissed. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan
High Court dated October 7, 1963, but in the circumstances of
the case there will be no order as to costs.
Y.P.
Appeal allowed.