C.M. Lodha, C.J.
1. The petitioner, who is erstwhile Ruler of the former State of Sirohi, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated March 29, 1978 (Annexure 1) be set aside and it may be declared that the Jagir of Manadar is not returnable under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act (Act No 6 of 1952)(which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act').
2. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Jagir in question is his 'private Jagir' which does not fall within the definition of 'jagir land' as defined in Section 210 read with First Schedule of the Act. It appears that a notification dated May 25, 1962, under Section 21 of the Act, was issued by the Government of Rajasthan in respect of the Jagir in question in the Raj. Gazette whereby the Jagir of Manadar was resumed with effect from July 1, 1962. The Jagir Commissioner provisionally determined the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner under Section 32(1) of the Act on January 7, 1963. Thereupon the petitioner filed objections before the Jagir Commissioner that the Jagir in question was his 'private Jagir' and as such it could not be resumed under the Act. It was further stated that the petitioner was having correspondence with the Central Government in this respect and so the result of the correspondence may be awaited. Some time later, the Government of Rajasthan intimated to the Jagir Commissioner that the Government of India had no objection to the Jagir in question being resumed and its compensation payable to the Jagirdar being determined. Thereafter, a fresh provisional award under 'Section 32(1) of the Act was made on December 20, 1966. The Jagir Commissioner was further informed by the Government of Rajasthan that the Jagir in question is included in the list of private property of the petitioner. The counsel for the State also conceded before the Jagir Commissioner that the Jagir Commissioner had no jurisdiction to determine compensation in respect of the so-called 'private Jagir' of the petitioner in dispute, and on this concession, the Jagir Commissioner ordered on August 23, 1968 (Annexure 2) that the case be struck off the file. The State filed a review application before the Jagir Commissioner and the learned Jagir Commissioner, by his order date October 17, 1969 (Annexure 5), allowed the review application, set aside the earlier order of the Jagir Commissioner dated August 23, 1958 and gave the final award under Section 32(2) of the Act.
3. Dissatisfied with the order of the Jagir Commissioner dated October 17, 1969 (Annexure 5), the petitioner filed appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and the Board of Revenue, by its order dated March 29, 1978, (Annexure 1) dismissed the petitioner's appeal In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the reliefs mentioned above.
4. The writ petition has been opposed by the State of Rajasthan, which has also filed a written reply to the writ petition.
5. It is argued by Shri Sayar Chand Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Jagir in question has been included in the Inventory of the Private properties of His Highness the Maharav of Sirohi (the petitioner) as his 'Private Jagir', and therefore, it must be held to be private property of the petitioner and further that under Art, 363 of the Constitution, no court has jurisdiction to decide any dispute in respect of any right relating to the list of private property of the erstwhile rulers which is a part of the Covenant entered into between the Government of India and the erstwhile Ruler of Sirohi State. It is further submitted that the mere fact that subsequently the Government of India was of the view that it had no objection to the 'private Jagir' in question being resumed, is of no consequence. The argument proceeds like this that since the Jagir in question is 'private jagir' and in the First Schedule appended to the Act, 'private Jagir' has not been included it could not have been resumed. In this connection, it has also been submitted that the Jagir in question is resumable only under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Acquisition of Land Owners' Estate Act (No. 2 of 1964) of 1913, which came into force subsequently.
6. We may observe, here, that the only point for our determination as whether she resumption of the Jagir in question under the Act is legal and valid? But it is not necessary for us to determine whether it is resumable under any other Act or not.
7. Now, it may be pointed out that 'Jagir land' has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Act as follows,-
(h) Jagir land' means any land in which r in relation to which a Jagirdar has rights in respect of laud revenue or any other kind of revenue and includes any land held on any of the tenures specified in the First Schedule.
THE FIRST SCHEDULE.
(See Clause (h) of Section 2) 1. Jagir 23. Bhogta2. Istamarar 24. Hazuri3. Chokoti 25. Sanaan4. Tankha 26. Mutsadi5. Suba 27. Khawas Paswan6. Manila 28. Rasala7. Inam 29. Marzidan8. Lalji 30. Patta9. Khangi 31. Guzira10. Aloofa 32. Udak11. Thikanas of Dholpur State 33. Juna Jagir12. Khanpan 34. Bhomichara13 Khidmat 35. Pasaita14. Jaidan Sigha 36. Baad15. Muafi 37. Dumba16. Tankedar 38. Doli17. Bhom 39. Milak18. Salami 40. Punarth19. Chakana 41. Prayada20. Petroti 42. I'jara Istamarar21. Rajvi 43. Bapoti22. Tazimi 44. Bakhshish45. Any other class ortenure of Stategrant of land.
It is true that there is no such word as 'Private Jagir' mentioned in the Schedule. But the reason may be that there was no such nomenclature prevalent at the relevant time in Rajasthan. The first item in the Schedule is 'Jagir.' Then there is a residuary item No 45 wherein any other type of Jagir not expressly mentioned, has been included i.e., 'any other class or tenure of State grant of land'. In our opinion, the Jagir in question, which has been mentioned as 'private Jagir' in the inventory of the private property of the petitioner must be deemed to be included in item No. 1 'Jagir', or, at any rate, it must fall under the residuary item No 45. In our view, therefore, the Jagir of Manadar falls within the purview of 'jagir land' as defined in the Act.
8. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel on the inventory of the private properties of the petitioner and it is being pressed upon us that since, the word 'private Jagir' has been written in it, this Court cannot decide dispute relating to it. It is sufficient to point out that we are not deciding any dispute arising out of the inventory. It is not the law that whatever is mentioned in the inventory of the private properties, cannot be resumed by an appropriate law We are, therefore, of opinion that even if the Jagir in question is mentioned as a 'private Jagir', it makes no difference so far as the applicability of the provisions of Act are concerned, provided the scalled 'private Jagir' falls within the put view of the Act. Here, it may not be out of place to mention that the notification for resumption of the Jagir in question was issued as far back as 1962 by the Government of Rajas than and no steps have been taken by the petitioner until now for cancellation of this notification. Only an objection was filed before the Jagir Commissioner that no compensation need be determined in respect of it and on this objection, the learned Jagir Commissioner by his order dated August 23, 1968 (Annexure 2) held that he was not competent to determine compensation on account of the resumption of the Jagir in question. It is obvious that the Jagir Commissioner was not competent to cancel the notification His function under the Act is confined to the question of determination and payment of compensation. There is no prayer even in the writ petition for cancelling the notification on the ground that it was illegal and void. We are, therefore, unable to see how the Jagir Commissioner could have refused to determine the compensation by his order Annexure 2 in face of the notification issued by the State Government.
9. It his also been argued that the Jagir Commissioner should not have passed the final order on the review application but should have first allowed the review application, then re-opened the case and thereafter should have passed the final order. We are not prepared to entertain this objection at this stage in as much as no such objection was taken either before the Jagir Commissioner or before the Beard of Revenue. Moreover, it does not appear to us to be of much substance as no prejudice has, thereby, been shown to have been caused to the petitioner.
10. The result is that we do not see any force in this writ petition and hereby dismiss it. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.