P.N. Shinghal, C.J.
1. The petitioner claims that he was the ex-Rana of Wav in Gujarat, and that Wav was ceded to the Government of India on May 28, 1948. He has stated that he was the Jagirdar of Sarwana and Barwana villages of Sanchore Tehsil, but he relinquished his rights 'in village Sarwana to the former Jodhpur State against an yearly payment of Rs. 577/- as income from the said village'. As regards Barwana, the petitioner has stated that he placed it under the management of the former Jodhpur State on condition that the State would look after his rights and render an account to him. The tribute for both the vilages was, according to the petitioner, paid by him and his ancestors to the Jodhpur State. The petitioner applied on August 27, 1963, for grant of compensation as his jagir was resumed under the Raiasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Jagir Commissioner asked him to substantiate his 'title' and ultimately decided by his order Annexure '2' dated June 20, 1966, that he was the jasirdar of the aforesaid villages. It was expressly stated by the Jagir Commissioner in that order that although village Sarwana was recorded as 'khalsa' in the settlement records, the claimant was entitled to receive compensation on an income of Rs. 577/- paid by the Government. As regards Barwana, the Jagir Commissioner held that although it wasalso recorded as a 'khalsa' village in the settlement records, and not as a iagir village, the documents produced by the petitioner showed that both the villages were originally jagir villages which were managed by the State Government on Ms behalf and that the 'mere entry in, settlement record cannot debar the claimant to receive compensation'. The jagir Commissioner took the view that the settlement record 'only raises a presumption but a presumption cannot replace proof'. He therefore relied on order No. 3710/GIA dated August 27, 1937 of Superintendent Tribute and declared the villages as the jagir villages of the petitioner under Section 37 of the Act. The State preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue, and the Board's judgment dated February 1, 1968 is on record as Annexure 3. The learned Members of the Board have held that the aforesaid order of the Jagir Commissioner was without jurisdiction because he had decided a dispute regarding an entry in the settlement record without sending the case to the competent revenue Court. The petitioner feels aggrieved against the Board's decision, and has approached this Court for its correction by way of certiorari.
2. The respondents have filed a reply in support of the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue.
3. The relevant provisions of the Act, to which our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the parties, are Sections 23, 37 and 46 of the Act. Of these, Section 23 deals with private lands, buildings, wells etc., and has nothing to do with the 'controversy relating to 'title, right or interest' in any jagir land. Section 37 deals, inter alia, with the question of title and provides as follows:--
'37. Question of title. -- (1) If in the course of a proceeding under this Act any question relating to title, right or inter-rest in any jagir land, other than a question as to any Khudkasht land or the correctness or otherwise of any entry relating thereto in settlement 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 therein or a question referred to in Section 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955, arises and the question so arising has not already been determined by a competent authority, the Jagir Commissioner shall proceed to make an inquiry into the merits of the question so arising and pass such orders thereon as he deems fit.
(2) Every question referred to in Section 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions 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 (1) 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 Sub-sections (2) and (3) arises in the course of a proceeding 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.'
4. As Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act refers, inter alia, to the question of khudkasht land, the learned counsel for the parties have invited our attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Aimer v. Rao Baldev Singh, AIR 1968 SC 898 where that question arose for consideration with reference to the provisions of Sections 23 and 37, in the context of Sections 46 and 47. Their Lordships have laid down the law as follows:--
'Having regard to the scheme and purpose of the Act it is manifest that Section 23 empowers the Jagir 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, Section 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 Section 37 is quite different from that of Section 23 and the nature of the enquiry contemplated by the two sections also is different.'
It is thus well settled that Section 37, with which we are concerned, deals with questions of disputed titles, and not with the nature of the land, so that any dispute, relating to title, right or interest in any land claimed to be jagir land has to be decided by the Jagir Commissioner under Section 37, in accordance with the other provisions of that section, namely, Sub-sections (3) and (4). It follows therefore that if, in that connection, the question arises whether a settlement entry is correct, it will have to be inquired into and decided by a revenue officer or court competent to decide it under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the rules made thereunder, for this is the clear requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the Act. In other words, if there is a controversy regarding the correctness or otherwise of an entry in a settlement record which bears on the question of right, title or interest in any jagir land, it is not permissible for the Jagir Commissioner to decide it straightway as it is the requirement of law that it will be decided by the competent revenue officer or court. And, after the controversy has been finally settled in those proceedings, Sub-section (4) of Section 37 provides that the Jagir Commissioner shall be 'bound' by it and 'act according to such decision'. It may be that, as has been suggested by Mr. Mehta appearing for the petitioner, the controversy regarding the correctness or otherwise of an entry in the settlement record bearing on the question of right, title or interest may ultimately have to be referred, in a given case, to a civil court, in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, but the fact remains that the decision on that aspect of the matter will fall within the purview of court concerned as required by subsections (3) and (4) of Section 37 of the Act and when a final decision has been given on that aspect of the matter, it will be for the Jagir Commissioner to act according to it while deciding the question of 'title, right or interest.'
5. In the view we have taken, we are unable to think that any interference is called for in the impugned order Annexure '3' dated February 1, 1968, of the Board of the Revenue and we dismiss the writ petition with costs.