http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: THAKUR NARAIN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/03/1982

BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) KOSHAL, A.D. ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:  1982 AIR  979            1982 SCR  (3) 474  1982 SCC  (2)  66        1982 SCALE  (1)218

ACT:      Rajasthan Land  Reforms and  Resumption of  Jagirs Act, 1952, section  6(3) (a)  (i) read  with  the  definition  of "settled village" in section 2(n)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      Thakur Sangram Singh, the father of the appellant was a jagirdar of  Thikana Diggi in the erstwhile State of Jaipur. His jagir  was resumed on 1st of July, 1954 under section 21 of the  Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 entitling him to compensation on the date of resumption of his  jagir under  section  26  of  the  Jagirs  Act.  The compensation  was   to  be   determined  according   to  the principles laid  down in the Second Schedule attached to the Act. If  the jagir  was a settled one the compensation would be assessed  on the  basis of  the rent  rates as settled in settlement operation  which were  prevalent on  the date  of resumption and  as entered  in the  Revenue records  of  the village within  the meaning of section 6(3) (a)(i) read with the definition  of "settled  village" contained  in  section 2(n). If  on the  other hand, the jagir was an unsettled one the compensation  would have  to be  assessed on  the actual income from  the rents  during the three agricultural years: 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52 as provided in section 7 of the Act.      Prior to  the date  of resumption  settlement operation were going  on under  the Jaipur  State Grants  Land Tenures Act, 1947  in respect  of the jagir. The rent rates proposed by the  Settlement Officer  were published  in the Rajasthan Gazette dated  23rd of  August, 1952.  The rent  rates fixed were made  applicable with effect from Ist of July 1953 and, therefore, on  the date  of resumption, namely, on Ist July, 1955, rent  rates assessed  by the  Settlement  Officer  and approved by the Government were in force, for the purpose of payment of compensation under the Jagirs Act.      Sangram Singh challenged the validity of the rent rates fixed under  the settlement  operation by  means of  a  writ petition No.  308 of  1953. The High Court quashed the order settling the rent rates being in flagrant violations of sec. 82 (1)  (a) and  (b) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947  with a  direction to  settle fresh  rent rates in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

accordance with the said provision. Pursuant to the order of the  High  Court  fresh  rent  rates  were  settled  by  the Settlement Officer  on 6th  of June, 1955 with retrospective operation  from   Ist  July,  1953.  According  to  the  new settlement the  total  rental  income  from  the  jagir  was reduced from Rs. 1,31,657.48 to Rs. 82,501 50. 475      The  Jagir   Commissioner  by   his  order  dated  25th November, 1960 granted compensation on the basis of the rent rates  assessed   in  1955.   The  Jagirdar   unsuccessfully preferred an  appeal before  the Board  of Revenue.  Sangram Singh died  in the  mean  time  so  his  son  the  appellant challenged the order of the Board of Revenue on two grounds: (1) that  the compensation  should have been assessed on the basis of  rent rates  determined in  1953 as it stood on the date of  resumption. (2)  or  in  the  absence  of  a  valid settlement on  the basis  of actual income from rents during the  three   agricultural  years.   Treating  the  Jagir  as unsettled, the  High Court  rejected both the grounds. Hence the appeal  by certificate  under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.      Allowing the appeal and remanding the case, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  As a  result of  the quashing of the order of Settlement of  rent rates  of 1953  by the  High Court,  the jagir would  be taken  as an  unsettled one  on the  date of resumption. The  quashing of  the order  of Settlement  only means  tabula   rasa  (clean  slate)  as  if  there  was  no determination of rent rates in 1953.                                                    [479 E-F]      2. The  criterion to  determine  whether  a  particular jagir is  a settled  one or  not is  to see whether the rent rates determined  in settlement  operations have  been  made applicable. It  is only  from the  date of effectuation of a valid settlement  of rent  rates in  respect of a particular jagir which makes the jagir a settled one. [480 C-D]      3. Section  86 of  the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947  clearly indicates  that the  rent  fixed  by  the Settlement Officer  shall normally be payable from the first of July  next following  the date  of such order and further authorises the  Settlement Officer to make the same shall be payable from some earlier date. The realisation of rent from a retrospective  date will  not make the jagir in question a settled one  as from that date. The settlement of rent rates is one thing and the realisation of rent on the basis of the settlement is  quite another.  In  the  case  of  a  settled village the compensation would be determined on the basis of the rent  rates  settled  during  the  settlement  operation recorded in  the Revenue  Papers on  the date of resumption. Thus it  is the  effectuation of  the rent  rates determined during the  settlement made  prior to the date of resumption which would  make the  village a  settled village as on that date. [480 F-H]      In the  instant case,  the jagirdar  became entitled to compensation on  the date  of resumption. If the village was an unsettled  village on  the date of resumption he would be entitled to  compensation on  the basis of the village being unsettled. The  right of compensation vested in the jagirdar on the  date of  resumption and  he could not be deprived of his right  by a subsequent amendment unless the amendment in law specifically  or by  necessary implication  provided for depriving the jagirdar of his vested right. There is nothing in the  definition of  the term "settled" under sec 2 (n) of the Act  or in  sec. 86  of the  Jaipur  State  Grants  Land Tenures Act  to indicate  that the  Legislature intended  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

affect the vested right. [481 A-D] 476

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1825 of 1970.      From the  Judgment an order dated the 28th August, 1969 of the  Rajasthan High  Court in D. B. Civil Writ No. 365 of 1962.      S.N. Kacker, K. K. Jain, P. Dayal & S. K. Gupta for the Appellant.      Badri Das Sharma for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      MISRA, J.  The present  appeal by  certificate  granted under Article  133 (1)  (a) of  the Constitution is directed against the  judgment of  the High  Court of Rajasthan dated 28th of  August, 1969  dismissing writ  petition No.  365 of 1962.      Thakur Sangram Singh, the father of the appellant was a jagirdar of  Thikana Diggi in the erstwhile State of Jaipur. His jagir  was resumed on Ist of July, 1954 under section 21 of the  Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as ’the Jagirs Act, 1952’. The Jagirdar became  entitled to  compensation on  the  date  of resumption of  his jagir under section 26 of the Jagirs Act. The compensation  was to  be  determined  according  to  the principles laid down in the second schedule attached to that Act. He filed his claim for compensation in August, 1954. He claimed compensation  on the  basis of rent rates which were in force on the date of resumption.      It appears  that settlement  operations were  going  on under the  Jaipur State  Grants Land  Tenures Act, 1947. The rent rates proposed by the Settlement Officer were published in the  Rajasthan Gazette  dated 23rd  of August,  1952. The final proposals of the Settlement Officer were sanctioned by the Government  on 25th  of November,  1953. The  rent rates fixed were  made applicable  with effect  from 1st  of July, 1953. Obviously,  therefore,  on  the  date  of  resumption, namely, Ist  of July,  1954,  rent  rates  assessed  by  the Settlement Officer  and approved  by the  Government on 25th November, 1953 were in force.      Sangram Singh,  however, challenged the validity of the rent rates  fixed under  the settlement  by  means  of  writ petition No. 308 of 477 1953, which  was allowed  by  the  High  Court  on  23rd  of November, 1954,  quashing the  rent rates  as they  were  in flagrant violation  of section  82 (1)  (a) and  (b) of  the Jaipur State  Grants Land  Tenures Act, 1947. The High Court gave  a   direction  for  fresh  rates  to  be  proposed  in accordance with  the said  provisions. Pursuant to the order of the  High Court  dated 23rd November, 1954 the rent rates were  revised  and  fresh  rent  rates  were  fixed  by  the Settlement Officer  on 6th  of  June,  1955  and  they  were applied retrospectively  from 1st of July, 1953. The revised rent rates  were substantially  lower than  the  rent  rates assessed in  1953. According  to the  rent rates of 1953 the total rental  income from  the jagir was Rs.131,657.48 while according to  the revised  rent rates  the rental income was reduced to Rs. 82,501.50.      The jagirder  again filed  a writ  petition No.  135 of 1955 for  a direction  to the  State Government not to apply the rent  rates assessed in 1955 retrospectively with effect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

from 1st  of July,  1953. The High Court, however, held that it was  open to  the Settlement  Officer to apply rent rates retrospectively under  section 86 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947. But the High Court specifically left open the  question whether or not the rent rates assessed in 1955 and  applied retrospectively  from 1st July, 1953 could form the  basis for  determining compensation payable to the jagirdar under the Act.      When the  jagirdar filed  his claim for compensation in August, 1954  his writ  petition challenging  the rent rates enforced by  the Government  order dated  25th of  November, 1953 was  pending. The  jagirdar, therefore, based his claim for  compensation  alternatively  under  sections  6  and  7 respectively of  the Jagirs  Act. As pointed out earlier, on the basis  of the  settlement of 1953 the rental income from the jagir  came to Rs. 1,31,657.48. If on the other hand the jagir  was  taken  to  be  unsettled,  he  was  entitled  to compensation on  the basis of actual rental income for three years  which   came  to   about  Rs.   3  lakhs.  The  Jagir Commissioner by  his order  dated  25th  of  November,  1960 granted compensation  on the basis of rent rates assessed in 1955. The  jagirdar preferred  an appeal before the Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed.      Sangram Singh  died in  December 1961  and the order of the  Board   of  Revenue  was  challenged  by  his  son  the petitioner appellant  in the  High Court  of Rajasthan.  Two alternative contentions were 478 raised before  the High  Court on  behalf of the petitioner: (1) that  the compensation  should have been assessed on the basis of rent rates determined in 1953 as they were the rent rates assessed  on the jagir lands as entered in the revenue records of  the village  within the meaning of section 6 (3) (a) (i)  read  with  the  definition  of  ’settled  village’ contained in  section 2  (n) as  it stood  on  the  date  of resumption; (2) that in the absence of a valid settlement on the date  of resumption  the jagir  should be treated as not being  a   ’settled  village’  and  compensation  should  be assessed on  the actual  income from  rents during the three agricultural  years;   1949-50,  1950-51   and  1951-52,  as provided in section 7 of the Act.      The  High  Court  declined  to  accept  either  of  the contentions. The  first contention  was rejected by the High Court on  the ground  that the  petitioner was estopped from taking up  the position  by his  own conduct inasmuch as his father had  challenged the  rent rates  assessed in  1953 by means of  a writ  petition which  was allowed  and the  rent rates assessed  in 1953  were quashed,  and secondly because the rent  rates assessed  in 1953  were a nullity and in the eyes of  law there  were no  valid rent  rates assessed  and entered in  the  revenue  records  on  the  basis  of  which compensation  could   have  been   determined.  The   second contention was  also negatived on the ground that fresh rent rates in  accordance with  the directions  of the High Court were assessed  in 1955 and were applied retrospectively with effect from  1st July,  1953 and, therefore, the jagir could not be  taken to be an unsettled village. The petitioner has now come  to challenge  the order  of the  High Court by the present appeal.      It may  be pointed  out that if the jagir was a settled one the  compensation would  be assessed on the basis of the rent rates  as settled  in settlement operations, which were prevalent on  the date  of resumption  and as entered in the revenue records of the village within the meaning of section 6 (3)  (a) (i) read with the definition of ’settled village’

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

contained in  section 2 (n). If on the other hand, the jagir was an  unsettled one  the compensation  would  have  to  be assessed on  the actual  income from  the rents  during  the three agricultural  years: 1949-50,  1950-51 and  1951-52 as provided in section 7 of the Act.      Shri  S.N.  Kacker  has  contended  on  behalf  of  the appellant that  the rent  rates settled  in 1953 having been quashed by the High 479 Court, the  jagir would be deemed to be an unsettled village and, therefore,  the compensation  should be  determined  in accordance with  the provisions  of section 7 of the Act and not in  accordance with  the rent  rates determined in 1953. From the  observations made  by the  High Court itself it is evident that the rent rates notified in 1953 were quashed as invalid. After the quashing of rent rates determined in 1953 it can  by no  stretch  of  imagination  be  said  that  the settlement made  in 1953  still stood  for  the  purpose  of determining the compensation for the jagir in question.      Shri Badri  Das Sharma  appearing for  the State on the other  hand   has  contended   that  it  is  true  that  the determination of  rent rates  in 1953  had been quashed, but the High  Court had  directed re-determination  of the  rent rates in  accordance with  the provisions of section 82 and, therefore,  the   direction  of   the  High  Court  was  for rectifying the mistake that had cropped in the determination of the  rent rates of 1953 and if this be so, the rent rates determined in  1953 were  still there  and the  compensation could be determined on that basis.      Having  given   our  anxious   consideration   to   the contentions raised  on behalf  of the  parties we are of the positive view that after the quashing of the settlement made in 1953  it cannot  be said that the settlement of the jagir still existed.  It is  to be  noted at  this stage  that the settlement of  1953 was  quashed by  the High  Court on  the ground that  the procedure  laid down in the statute had not been followed.  The quashing  of such  an order  only  means tabula rasa  (clean slate)  as if there was no determination of rent  rates in 1953. In this view of the matter the jagir would be  taken to  be an  unsettled village  on the date of resumption.      Shri Badri Das Sharma, however, contended that pursuant to the  direction of  the High Court in Writ No. 308 of 1953 fresh rent  rates were  assessed in  1955  which  were  made applicable with  retrospective effect from 1st of July, 1953 and that, therefore, the rent rates assessed in 1955 will be taken to  be  the  rent  rates  prevalent  on  the  date  of resumption and  as such  the Board of Revenue as well as the High Court  were fully  justified in  taking the  view  that compensation was  to be  determined on the basis of the rent rates assessed  in 1955.  In support  of his contention Shri Sharma referred  to the  definition of the ’settled village’ in section 2 (n), which reads: 480           "(n) ’Settled’  when  used  with  reference  to  a      village or  any other  area, means the village or other      area  to   which  the   rent  rates  determined  during      settlement operations have been made applicable whether      prospectively or retrospectively, and the whole of such      village or other area shall be deemed, for the purposes      of this  Act and  the rules and orders made thereunder,      to be  so settled  if such  rates  have  been  made  so      applicable to  not less  than  three  fourths  of  such      village or other area." On the  strength of  this definition  it  is  sought  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

contended that the jagir in question would be deemed to be a settled village  as it  is open  to the authorities to apply the settlement  either prospectively or retrospectively, and it  was   made  applicable   by   the   Settlement   Officer retrospectively. We  are  afraid,  the  argument  cannot  be accepted. The  criterion to  determine whether  a particular jagir is  a settled  one or  not is  to see whether the rent rates determined  in settlement  operations have  been  made applicable. It  is only  from the  date of effectuation of a valid settlement  of rent  rates in  respect of a particular jagir which makes the jagir a settled one.      Reliance was  also placed  on section  86 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947, which runs thus:           "86. Any  rent fixed  by order  of the  Settlement      Officer under  this Act shall be payable from the first      day of  July next  following the  date of  such  order,      unless the  Settlement  Officer  thinks  fit,  for  any      reason to  direct that  it shall  be payable  from some      earlier date." A plain  reading of  this section  indicates that  the  rent fixed by  the Settlement  Officer shall  normally be payable from 1st  of July next following the date of such order. The section, however,  further authorises the Settlement Officer to direct  that the  same shall be payable from some earlier date. The realisation of rent from a retrospective date will not make  the jagir  in question  a settled one as from that date. The  settlement of  rent rates  is one  thing and  the realisation of  rent on the basis of the settlement is quite another. In case of a settled village the compensation would be determined  on the basis of the rent rates settled during a settlement operation recorded in the revenue papers on the date of  resumption. Thus,  it is  the applicability  of the rent rates  determined during a settlement made prior to the date of  resumption which  would make  the village a settled village as on that date. 481      There is  yet another  aspect from which the matter can be looked into. The jagirdar became entitled to compensation on the date of resumption and, therefore, we have to examine the position  as it  stood on the date of resumption. If the village was  an unsettled  village on the date of resumption he would  be entitled  to compensation  on the  basis of the village being unsettled. The right of compensation vested in the jagirdar  on the  date of resumption and he could not be deprived of  his right  by a subsequent amendment unless the amendment in  law specifically  or by  necessary implication provided or  depriving the  jagirdar of his vested right. We do not find anything in the definition of the term ’settled’ under section  2 (n)  of the  Act or  in section  86 of  the Jaipur State  Grants Land  Tenures Act  to indicate that the legislature intended to affect the vested right.      In  this   view  of   the  legal  position,  the  jagir Commissioner was not justified in assessing the compensation on the  basis of  the assessment  of rent rates in 1955. The only correct basis will be to treat the jagir in question as an  unsettled   one  and   determine  the   compensation  in accordance with section 7 of the Act.      In the  result the  appeal is  allowed with  costs. The orders of  the High  Court, the Board of Revenue and that of the Jagir  Commissioner are  set aside  and the case is sent back to the Jagir Commissioner to determine the compensation afresh treating  the jagir  in question  to be unsettled one and in  accordance with  the provisions  of section 7 of the Act. The  appellant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum on the amount of compensation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

so determined,  from the date of resumption till the date of payment of the compensation. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed. 482