# THAKUR BAHADUR SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 438
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. w ANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/thakur-bahadur-singh-v-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-2134
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Resumption of Jagirs-Extinguishment of tribute-Hukamnama, if amounts to tribute-Demand for hukamnama, if maintainable-M arwar Land Revenue Act, r949 (Marwar 40 of 1949),
ss. r85(I), r9o(I)-Rajasthan Land Reforms and, Resumption of
Jagirs Act, z952 (Rajasthan 6 of r952), ss. 2(r), 4(a), 8.
The title of the petitioner to sncceed to the jagir as the next
heir of his father who died in July 1946 was recognised and a
renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an order
dated March 8, 1952. Section 190 of the Marwar Land Revenue
Act, 1949, imposed an obligation on the succeeding heir to
execute within one month of the communication to him of the
order a kabuliyat for payment of hukamnama and other fees
according to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act, and the
amount payable by the petitioner thereby which came to
Rs. 30,000 was demanded by the respondent-State. In the meantime, the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of J agirs
Act, 1952, had been passed and came into force on February 16,
1952, and s. 4(a) of this Act enacted that "the liability of all
Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing
Jagir Law shall cease", while "tribute" was defined bys. 2(r) in
the following terms: "Tribute' in relation to a jagir, includes
rekh, rakam, chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar
nature". The petitioner challenged the legality of the demand
on the ground that the liability to pay hukamnama was a tribute
within the meaning of that word in s. 4(a).
Held, that notwithstanding that the definition of the expression "tribute" ins. 2(r) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and
Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, is inclusive, on an examination
of the meaning of the word as used in the operative provisions
of the Act, it could refer only to recurring payments which
could be said to be attributable to particular years and not to the
type of ad hoc payments of which hukamnama was an example.
Accordingly, the liability to pay hukamnama is not comprehended within the expression "tribute" under s. 4(a) and,
consequently, was not extinguished by the provisions of the
Rajasthan Act of 1952.
Thakur Narpat Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, I.L.R. [1955]
Rajasthan 534, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 200 of 1955.
t
•
>
I
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
439
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
I96I
India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Thakur
S. K. Kapoor and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioner.
Bahadur Singh
G. 0. Kasliwal and D. Gupta, for the respondents.
v.
State of Rajasthan
1961. March 17. The Judgment of the Court was
_
delivered by
Ayyangar ].
AYYANGAR, J.-Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land
Reforms and Resumption of Ja,girs Act, 1952 (which
will be hereafter referred to as the Raja,sthan Act),
enacts:
"4. AU lands liable to pay land revenue.-N otwithstanding anything contained in any existing
jagir law or any other law, all jagir lands shall, as
from the commencement of this Act, be liable to
payment of land revenne to the Government; and as
from such commencement, the liability of-
(a) all Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing Jagir Law shall cease, and
"
The expression 'tribute', the liability to pay which
was thus extinguished from and after the commencement of the Act, was defined ins. 2(r) of that Act in
the following terms:
"'Tribute' in rela,tion to a ja,gir, includes rekh,
rakam, chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar
nature; ·and"
In the absence of the above provision the petitioner
would have been under an obligation to pay to the
Government 'hukamnama' under s. 190 of the Marwar
Land Revenue Act, 1949 (referred to hereafter as the
Marwar Act) which codified the ea,rlier law in that
State. The short question that is ra,ised by this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is whether the
liability of the petitioner to pay 'hukamnama', the
nature of which we shall explain later, has been extinguished by the provision of the Rajasthan Act above
extra

## Text

I96I
March x7.
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
THAKUR BAHADUR SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. w ANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Resumption of Jagirs-Extinguishment of tribute-Hukamnama, if amounts to tribute-Demand for hukamnama, if maintainable-M arwar Land Revenue Act, r949 (Marwar 40 of 1949),
ss. r85(I), r9o(I)-Rajasthan Land Reforms and, Resumption of
Jagirs Act, z952 (Rajasthan 6 of r952), ss. 2(r), 4(a), 8.
The title of the petitioner to sncceed to the jagir as the next
heir of his father who died in July 1946 was recognised and a
renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an order
dated March 8, 1952. Section 190 of the Marwar Land Revenue
Act, 1949, imposed an obligation on the succeeding heir to
execute within one month of the communication to him of the
order a kabuliyat for payment of hukamnama and other fees
according to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act, and the
amount payable by the petitioner thereby which came to
Rs. 30,000 was demanded by the respondent-State. In the meantime, the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of J agirs
Act, 1952, had been passed and came into force on February 16,
1952, and s. 4(a) of this Act enacted that "the liability of all
Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing
Jagir Law shall cease", while "tribute" was defined bys. 2(r) in
the following terms: "Tribute' in relation to a jagir, includes
rekh, rakam, chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar
nature". The petitioner challenged the legality of the demand
on the ground that the liability to pay hukamnama was a tribute
within the meaning of that word in s. 4(a).
Held, that notwithstanding that the definition of the expression "tribute" ins. 2(r) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and
Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, is inclusive, on an examination
of the meaning of the word as used in the operative provisions
of the Act, it could refer only to recurring payments which
could be said to be attributable to particular years and not to the
type of ad hoc payments of which hukamnama was an example.
Accordingly, the liability to pay hukamnama is not comprehended within the expression "tribute" under s. 4(a) and,
consequently, was not extinguished by the provisions of the
Rajasthan Act of 1952.
Thakur Narpat Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, I.L.R. [1955]
Rajasthan 534, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 200 of 1955.
t
•
>
I
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
439
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
I96I
India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Thakur
S. K. Kapoor and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioner.
Bahadur Singh
G. 0. Kasliwal and D. Gupta, for the respondents.
v.
State of Rajasthan
1961. March 17. The Judgment of the Court was
_
delivered by
Ayyangar ].
AYYANGAR, J.-Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land
Reforms and Resumption of Ja,girs Act, 1952 (which
will be hereafter referred to as the Raja,sthan Act),
enacts:
"4. AU lands liable to pay land revenue.-N otwithstanding anything contained in any existing
jagir law or any other law, all jagir lands shall, as
from the commencement of this Act, be liable to
payment of land revenne to the Government; and as
from such commencement, the liability of-
(a) all Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing Jagir Law shall cease, and
"
The expression 'tribute', the liability to pay which
was thus extinguished from and after the commencement of the Act, was defined ins. 2(r) of that Act in
the following terms:
"'Tribute' in rela,tion to a ja,gir, includes rekh,
rakam, chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar
nature; ·and"
In the absence of the above provision the petitioner
would have been under an obligation to pay to the
Government 'hukamnama' under s. 190 of the Marwar
Land Revenue Act, 1949 (referred to hereafter as the
Marwar Act) which codified the ea,rlier law in that
State. The short question that is ra,ised by this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is whether the
liability of the petitioner to pay 'hukamnama', the
nature of which we shall explain later, has been extinguished by the provision of the Rajasthan Act above
extracted which, as would be seen, turns on whether
such a payment could be comprehended within the
expression 'tribute'. Relying on s. 4(a) of the Rajasthan Act, the petitioner resists the demand of the
same made by the respondent-State and impugns tha
legality of the claim.
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
'96'
It is necessary to set out a few facts and certain
Thakur
provisions of the Marwar Act to appreciate the matter
Bahadur Singh in controversy. Thakur N athu Singh, the J agirdar
v.
of Ras-a "Scheduled J agir" under the l\farwar Act
State of Rajasthan died in July 1946 leaving the petitioner, Thakur Bahadur Singh as his next heir. "Scheduled Jagirs" are,
Ayyangar J.
under the Marwar Act, impartible and their line of
devolution was prescribed by s. 182 thereof which
ran:
"Succession shall be governed in the case of Scheduled Jagirs by the rule of primogeniture."
The succession, however, was not automatic but had
to be recognised by the Government and a renewal
granted in favour of the successor before his title to
the jagir was perfected. Sections 183-185 of the
Marwar Act which are of relevance in this connection,
ran:
. "S. 183.
All grants of Scheduled J agirs are only
for the life-time of the holder, and no person is
entitled to succeed to such jagir until his succession is recognized and the grant is renewed in his
favour by His Highness.
S. 184. Subject al ways to His Highness' pleasure,
the grant of a Scheduled J agir, on the death of the
holder, shall be renewed in favour of the person
entitled to succeed him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
S. 185(1). A Scheduled Jagir, on the death of the
holder, and until the renewal of the grant in favour
of his successor, shall be resumed by the Government and taken under direct management.
Provided that the claimant to succession shall, in
the absence of special orders of His Highness be
permitted to retain possession pending orders of His
Highness regarding the claim, if he is a direct lineal
descendant in the male line of the last holder.
(2) ..................... ,. ...................................... .
(3) ..............•.................•.............................
(4) .................................•.......•.....••........... ".
The title of the petitioner to succeed to the jagir as
the next heir of his father was recognised and a renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an
I
•
I
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
44J
order dated March 18, 1952. Section 190 of the Mar-
'96'
war Act imposes an obligation on a succeeding heir
Thakur
whose title has been recognised and to whom a
Bahadur Singh
renewal of the jagir has been granted, to make certain
v.
payments. This section runs:
State of Rajasthan
"S. 190(1). When succession to a Scheduled Jagir
is recognised by His Highness and renewal of the
Ayyangar f.
grant ordered, the person in whose favour the grant
is ordered to be renewed shall execute within one
month of the communication to him of the orders,
a 'Kabuliyat' for payment of Hukamnama and other
fees payable in accordance with sub-sections (2)
and (3).
(2) .................... ·············•··•·················•••··•·•
(3) .....................................•...................... ".
The amount payable by the petitioner, according
to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act, came to
Rs. 30,000 and the respondent-State demanded this
sum. Before, however, the date of the order according recognition and granting renewal in favour of the
petitioner, the Rajasthan Act of 1952 had been passed
and having received the assent of the President on
February 13, 1952, came into force on publication in
the Gazette on February 16, 1952, and under s. il of
this Act, whose terms have been set out already, the
liability on the part of Jagirdars to pay "all tribute"
to Government got extinguished.
The question debated in this petition is whether the
liability to pay 'hukamnama' or other fees under s. 190
of the Marwar Act is a 'tribute' from the payment of
which the J agirdars are thus relieved.
It is common ground, subject to a submission of the
learned Advocate-General for the respondent-State,
which we shall refer to a little later, that if the
'hukamnama' which the petitioner has been required
to pay to the Government was a 'tribute' within s. 4
of the Rajasthan Act, it would cease to be exigible
and cannot be enforced from and after February 16,
1952, because it is not in dispute that the petitioner is
a Jagirdar and 'hukamnama' regarding which the
demand has been made on him "is a demand which
56
'1
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
z96z
is due under an existing Jagir law'', viz., the Marwar Act.
Thakur
Bahadur Singh
The precise question which now arises for our deciv.
sion came up before the High Court of Rajasthan in
State of Rajasthan 1955 on facts exactly parallel with the case before us
and a Bench of that Court held in a case reported as
Ayyangar f. Thakur Narpat Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1) that
'hukamnama' and the fees payable under s. 190 of
the Marwar Act were not within s. 4(a) of the Rajasthan Act.
Consequently, the arguments on either
side before us took the form of either supporting the
reasoning contained in that judgment or in disputing its correctness. It therefore becomes necessary
for us to examine the reasoning upon which the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court reached a
conclusion adverse to the contention of the petitioner
now before us.
Before doing so, however, it is necessary to advert
to a point sought to be raised by the learned Advocate-General for Rajasthan for the respondent which
would cut across all this debate. He sought to urge
that s. 4 of the Rajasthan Act was not retrospective
and that as the recognition of the title of the petitioner
and the renewal of the grant of the jagir in his favour
related back to July 1946 when the succession opened,
the Rajasthan Act could not be invoked to put an end
to the obligation which had accrued years before it
came into force notwithstanding that the orders of
recognition and renewal were passed only in March
1952. In the circumstances of this case, however, and
also regard being had to the point not having been
raised in the answer filed hy the State to the writ
petition, we did not consider it proper to permit the
Advocate-General to pursue the submission.
We will now proceed to consider the correctness or
otherwise of the conclusion reached by the learned
Judges of the Rajasthan High Court in the case just
now referred to. Stated briefly, the ratio of their
decision was as follows: Under the law governing jagir
grants and the tenure on which they are held in J\farwar, a 'hukamnama' is a levy chargeable for recognition of the succession of a person to a Scheduled J agir
(•) I.L.R. [1955] Rajasthan 534,
•
•
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
443
of his deceased ancestor. The specific dues, Rekh and
'96'
Chakri enumerated in the definition of s. 2(r) of the
Thakur
Rajasthan Act are those levied in Marwar, the former Bahadur Singh
being 8 per cent of the gross rental value of an estate
v.
and the second the cash equivalent of the obligation State of Rajasthan
to supply horsemen or camelsowars or foot-soldiers by
Jagirdars dependent upon the value of the estate.
Ayyangar f.
Similar payments are known as 'Rakam' in the State
of Bikaner and 'Chatund' in the State of Udaipur,
these States being the components of the State of
Rajasthan. All these dues, Rekh, Rakam, Chatund
a.nd Chakri were annual and recurring payments made
by J agirdars. When therefore the definition in s. 2(r)
concluded with the words 'other charges of a similar
nature', it must necessarily be held that these general
words should be confined to charges which were also
:recurring. The 'hukamnama' and other dues payable
under s. 190 of the Marwar Act, however, were not
recurring payments and were in consideration of the
ruler exercising his discretion to recognise a succession
and grant renewal of the jagir in favour of the next
heir. In other words, these were payments due to the
ruler in recognition of his sovereign right to the
ownership of the land which was statutorily embodied
in ss. 169-170 of the Marwar Act which ran:
"S. 169. The ownership of all land vests in His
Highness and all jagirs, bhoms, sansans, dolis or
similar proprietary interests are held and shall be
deemed to be held as grants from His Highness.
and
S. 170. All grants shall be held by the original
grantee or his successors during His Highness'
pleasure."
The payments under s. 190 of the Act therefore
were not of the same category as the payments enumerated in s. 2 (r) of the Rajasthan Act and hence
could not be comprehended within the meaning of the
expression 'tribute'.
The same matter was also put in a slightly different form by saying that whereas the payments enumerated in the definition of 'tribute' were those made
by J agirdars as such, i.e., after they got into possession, a 'hukamnama' was a payment made not by a
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r96r
Jagirdar but by a person who was merely a claimant
Thakur
to a jagir and as a condition of his title to it being
Bahadur Singh recognised.
v.
The correctness of this reasoning was challenged
State of Rajasthan before us by learned Counsel for the petitioner who
urged that the learned Judges of the High Court did
Ayyangar J.
not accord sufficient consideration to the fact that the
definition in s. 2(r) was an 'inclusive' definition and
could, therefore, include others not falling within the
enumerated types. In this connection, learned Counsel
relied upon the meaning of the word 'tribute' in W'ebster's New International Dictionary and in the Oxford
English Dictionary, Volume II. In the former, one
of the meanings given is:
"A tax, impost, duty, rental, or the like, paid by
a subject vassal to his sovereign or lord".
and in the latter:
"A tax or impost paid by one prince or state to
another in acknowledgement of submission or as the
price of peace, security and protection".
He therefore urged that the expression 'tribute' in
s. 2(r) would include those which fell within the ordinary dictionary meaning of the term, in addition to
those specifically enumerated therein. If the word
were understood in its ordinary dictionary meaning
without any statutory definition, learned Counsel added, the incidence of recurrence would not be a necessary attribute of the concept of a 'tribute'. The submission was that the learned Judges of the Rajasthan
High Court erred in confining the meaning of 'tribute'
to the enumerated payments and "other charges of a
similar 'nature", without taking into account the fact
that this was an inclusive and not an exhaustive or
even an illustrative definition. We see force in these
submissions and it must also be said that the argument in this form and the construction of s. 2(r) from
this aspect has not been considered by the learned
Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.
We have, therefore, to examine whether the sub'
mission can be sustained. Our task is, to discover
whether the expression 'tribute', as it occurs in the
Rajasthan Act, includes payments of the type now in
•
I •
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
445
controversy.
Apart from the usual express saving
I96I
contained in the opening words of s. 2 that the defiThakur
nitions set out are to be applied "unless the context Bahadur Singh
otherwise requires", the meaning of the word 'tribute'
v.
has to be ascertained from a consideration of the vari- State of Rajasthan
ous provisions of the Act and not merely from s. 4(a)
of the Act read in the light of the definition. It would
Ayyangar J.
be seen that in ultimate analysis the question of construction posed for our decision may be thus set out:
The four specific enumerated dues in the definition in
s. 2(r) are recurring annual payments. "Other charges
of a like nature" which follows this enumeration,
would obviously partake of that character and they
would also have to be similarly annual and recurring.
This was the basis of the decision of the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and the correctness of
this view up to this point cannot be and has not been
disputed. The definition, however, being "inclusive"
and not "meaning" these, it is said it must "include" something else. It must, however, be added
that the possibility cannot be ignored that the definition was made inclusive out of caution and with a
view not to exclude any payment which jagirdars
were making or were under an obligation to make, to
Government, seeing that the Act was to apply to an
integrated State composed of several States in which
there might have been great diversity of nomenclature
in designating these payments, and so as not to exclude any payment which would squarely fall within
the category regarding which provision was made in
the operative portion of the enactment.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that every
payment by a Jagirdar to the Government, whatever
be the nature of the payment and whatever be the
consideration therefor, is included in the expression.
If the expression 'tribute' occurred only in s. 4(a) in
the operative provisions of the Act, there might be
much to be said for the view presented by learned
Counsel for the petitioner and for invoking its dictionary meaning to ascertain the content of that word.
The Act, however, has used the word 'tribute' in several other sections and in different contexts and we
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r95r
consider that the precise ambit of this expression of
Thakur
rather indefinite import as contemplated or intended
Bahadur Singh by the framers of this Act has necessarily to be
v.
gathered from the entirety of the provisions. The
State of Rajasthan word 'tribute' has a ppa'rently no equivalent in the
local languages, so that it was obviously used as a
Ayyangar J.
convenient and compendious expression to designate
certain imposts which were levied by the rulers of the
several States which integrated to form the State of
Rajasthan. Further, this circumstance should obviously induce some caution before the dictionary meaning of the English word 'tribute' is treated as expressing the intention of the framers of the Rajasthan
Act.
We shall therefore proceed to set out and consider
the other provisions of the enactment in which the
word is used to discover the intentions of the framers
of the Act as to what they meant by it. Before proceeding further, we should add, that as under s. 4(a) of
the Rajasthan Act, the payment of Land Revenue computed under it is to be the substitute for the 'tribute'
previously demandable or paid, the manner in which
the land revenue under the Act is determined would
be relevant as throwing light on for what it is substituted. We have already set out the terms of s. 4
of the Rajasthan Act under which in substitution of
the payment of 'tribute' all lands are made liable to
the payment of land revenue. The amount of land
revenue payable by a J agirdar is fixed by s. 8 and this
is based in part on the annual rental income which
could be derived from the jagir computed in the manner set out in ss. 6 and 7. For our present purpose s. 8
is of importance, because the amount of 'tribute' payable forms one of the factors for determining the
amount of 'land revenue payable'. Section 8 enacts:
"S. 8.
Amount of land revenue payable.-The
lang revenue payable by a J agirdar in respect of his
jagir lands shall be-
(a) for the agricultural year 1951-52, an amount
equal to the amount of tribute payable by him to
the Government for that year;
(b) for the agricultural year 1952-53 and each of
the six succeeding agricultural years-
• I
'
j
'
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
447
(i) in the case of jagir lands the annual rental
z96z
income of which as determined under section 6 or
Thakur
section 7, exceeds five hundred rupees but does not Bahadur Singh
exceed five thousand rupees, one sixteenth of such
v.
rental income or the amount of the tribute which was State of Rajasthan
payable by the J agirdar for the agricultural year 195051, whichever is greater;
Ayyangar J.
(ii) in the case of jagir lands the rental income of
which as determined under section 6 or section 7
exceeds five thous.and rupees, one-eighth of such
annual rental income or the amount of the tribute
which was payable by the J agirdar for the agricultural year 1950-51, whichever is greater.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause the
amount of tribute payable by a Jagirdar to the
Government for the agricultural year 1950-51 shall
be deemed to be the amount of such tribute less the
amount of any tribute payable to such jagirdar by
any person to whom the J agirdar may have granted
any of his jagir lands;
(c) for the agricultural yel)>r 1959-60 and subsequent years, one-fourth of the rental income from
the jagir lands as determined under sections 6
and 7;
Provided that-
(i) where no tribute was payable by the Jagirdar
before the commencement of the Act or where the
whole of the tribute has been p~id before such commencement, the jagir lands shall be deemed to be
exempt from the payment of land revenue for the
agricultural year 1951-52;
(ii) where the jagirdar has paid a part of the
tribute before the commencement of this Act, the
land revenue payable by him for the agricultural
year 1951-52 shall be an amount equal to the
balance of the tribute which would have been payable by him for that year if this Act had not been
passed; and
(iii) the Government may direct that for the purposes of clauses (b) and (c) of this section, the rental
income of any jagir land for all or any of the agricultural year mentioned in those clauses shall be
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r96r
determined or redetermined on the basis of the
rental income which actually accrued to the jagirThakur
Bahadur Singh
dar from the jagir in such year or years, as the case
•.
may be."
State of Rajasthan
It will be seen that this section speaks of tribute
payable for the year specified-1951-52 or 1950-51Ayyangar_ J.
and it is obvious that the tribute here referred to
could only be the recurring payments like those enumerated in the definition in s. 2(r) to which could be
attributed the character of being a payment for a
specific year. Besides, it will be seen that under s. S(b)
the land revenue payable for the seven agricultural
years 1952-53 to 1959-60 is to be either a fraction of
the annual rental income or "the amount of the tribute which would be payable by the Jagirdar for the
year 1950-51 whichever is greater". Surely it would
be most unreasonable to hold that if during the year
1950-51 a Jagirdar made a payment of 'hukamnama'
this ad hoc payment should be treated as part of the
tribute for that year and the J agirdar made liable to
pay sums including 'hukamnama' for the seven years
1952-53 to 1959-60.
The main object of the Rajasthan Act was to effect
resumption of jagir lands by eliminating intermediaries and the 'tribute' payable by the erstwhile J agirdars enters into the calculation for computing the
compensation payable to them on such resumption.
The second schedule to the Act sets out the principles
governing the compensation payable' to J agirdars. It
may broadly be stated that the compensation payable
to J agirdars is determined on the basis of a multiple
of the net income of the basic year as determined
under r. 1 of the second schedule. The net income is
computed by first determining the gross income of the
J agirdars under various heads including the rental
income and deducting therefrom certain outgoings
which included the "tribute". Rule 4 of schedule 2
provides:
"4. Net income.-The net income of a Jagirdar
for the basic year shall be calculated by deducting
from his gross income therefor,-
(i) the amount that the Jagirdar would have
l
... _
'
•
\
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
449
been liable to pay to the Government as .tribute,
'96'
and, in the case of grantee from a Jagirdar, to the
Thakur
J agirdar in respect of such grant, for the basic year Bahadur Singh
if tLis Act had not been passed;
v.
(ii) any sums of recurring nature due to the State of Rajasthan
Government from the Jagirdar, or in the case of
-
grantee from the Jagirdar to the Jagirdar, for the
Ayyangar f.
basic year on any account other than land revenue;
3.ud
"
....................................................................
It is impossible to conceive that the framers of the
Act would have intended that the payment of a
'hukamnama' in the basic year should have a permanent effect on the quantum of compensation payable
to a Jagirdar under the provisions above extracted .
In addition to the compensation for the resumption
of the jagir under the provisions of the Rajasthan
Act, the J agirdars are entitled to be paid a rehabilitation grant under Chapter VIII A of the Act. The
method of calculation of this amount is set out in
Schedule III of the Act and for this purpose J agirdars
are classified on a graduated scale into various categories depending on the gross income from the 'estate.
This is followed by a proviso in these terms:
"Provided that for the purpose of calculating the
rehabilitation grant payable to a J agirdar falling in
this category such marginal adjustments shall be
made as will ensure that a J agirdar having a higher ·
net income does not get an amount by way of
rehabilitation grant which is less than that payable
to a Jagirdar having a lower net income. Provided
further that, in comparing J agirdars with different
amounts of income for the purpose of the first
proviso to this sub-clause,-
(i) Jagirdars who were not paying tribute shall
be compared only with J agirdars who were not
paying tribute,
(ii) J agirdars who were paying tribute shall be
compared only with Jagirdars who were paying
tribute,
(iii) Jagirdars who were paying any sums of
57
Thakur
Bahadur Singh
v.
State of Rajasthan
Ayyangar J,
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
recurring nature referred to in sub-clause (ii) of
clause 4 of the Second Schedule shall be compared
only with Jagirdars who were paying such sums,
and
(iv) in respect of Jagirdars who were paying
tribute or any sums of recurring nature referred to
in sub- clause (ii) of clause 4 of the Second Schedule
at different scales, the Government shall prescribe a
percentage of the gross income at which the amount
of tribute or such sums in respect of each J agirdar
shall be calculated irrespective of whether the
amount of tribute or such sums of recurring nature
that were being actually paid by him."
What we have said earlier about the construction of
the word 'tribute' in r. 4 of Schedule II would equally
apply to the construction of that expression as it
occurs in the provision extracted from Schedule III.
Notwithstanding therefore that the definition in
s. 2(r) of the Rajasthan Act is 'inclusive' it appears to
us from an examination of the meaning of the word
as used in the operative provisions of the Act, that it
could refer only to recurring payments which could
be said to be attributable to particular years and not
to the type of ad hoc payments of which hukamnamas
and patta-fees are examples. It might very well be
that the words at the end of s. 2(r) "other charges of
a similar nature" might not exhaust all the payments
which a 'tribute' connotes but still if the rest of the
Act indicates unmistakably the intention, that the
word 'tribute' has been used in a special sense taking
into account the law and usage obtaining in the
locality, these cannot be disregarded in favour of a
wider construction based merely upon the dicLionary
meaning of the expression. We need hardly add that
the provision to which we have adverted should
suffice to show that the construction put forward by
learned Counsel for the petitioner would work to the
grave disadvantage of the Jagirdars and would cause
them deprivation which could never have been
intended. We have thus reached the same conclusion '
as the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court,
though on a different line of reasoning.
·'
•
'
•
•
>
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
451
On the construction which we have adopted of the
'96'
expression 'tribute' in s. 4 of the Rajasthan Act the
Thakur
petitioner can have no legal or legitimate grievance Bahadu• Singh
against the enforcement of the payment made against
v.
him. The petition fails and is dismissed. There will State of Rajasthan
be no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
KESHAVLAL MOHANLAL SHAH
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
(K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Magistrate dismissed from service for criminal misconduct-Prosecution of-Cognizance by court-Sanction to
prosecute, if necessary-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (Act 5
of r898), s. r97.
The appellant, 'a Magistrate, was dismissed from service
as a result of a departmental enquiry. On a complaint filed by
the State Government he was convicted under s. 409 of the
Indian Penal Code. The point urged was that the trial Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence without
the previous sanction in view of the provisions of s. 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Held, that no previous sanction was necessary for a Court
to take cognizance of an offence committed by a Magistrate while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty
if he had ceased to be a Magistrate at the time the complaint
was made or police report was submitted to the Court, i.e., at
the time of the taking of cognizance of the offence committed.
S. A. Venkataraman v. The State, [1958] S.C.R. 1037, applied.
CRIMlliAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 127 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 4, 1958, of the former High Court
Ayyangar ].
March r7.
4
at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 728
> of 1958.
B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.