Holding

The jagir is to be treated as an unsettled village on the date of resumption, and compensation must be determined under section 7 of the Jagirs Act, not on the basis of the 1955 rent rates.

Summary

The appellant, Thakur Narain Singh, sought compensation for the resumption of his father's jagir under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The key dispute was whether the jagir should be classified as a "settled" village, allowing compensation based on rent rates fixed in the 1953 settlement, or as an "unsettled" village, requiring compensation under section 7 based on actual rental income. The 1953 settlement was quashed by the High Court, and a fresh settlement in 1955 was applied retrospectively, prompting the question whether those retrospective rates could be used for compensation. The Supreme Court held that the quashing of the 1953 settlement rendered the jagir unsettled on the date of resumption, and that retrospective application of the 1955 rates does not convert it into a settled village. Consequently, compensation must be calculated under section 7 of the Jagirs Act, based on actual income, and the orders of the High Court, Board of Revenue, and Jagir Commissioner were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the jagir is a "settled" village or an "unsettled" village for purposes of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952.
Whether rent rates fixed in 1955, applied retrospectively, can be used to determine compensation despite the earlier 1953 settlement being quashed.
Whether the definition of "settled village" under section 2(n) includes retrospective applicability of rent rates.
Whether the vested right to compensation on the date of resumption can be defeated by subsequent legislative or administrative amendment.

Legislation cited

Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947s. 2(n), s. 82(a), s. 82(b), s. 86
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952s. 21, s. 26, s. 6(3)(a)(i), s. 7

Subjects

land reformjagirsettlementcompensationsettled villageretrospective rent ratesvested rightRajasthan

Judgment

A 474

THAKUR NARAIN SINGH

v.

B STATE OF RAJASTHAN

March 5, 1982

[A.D. KOSHAL, V. BALAKRISHNA BRAD! AND
R.B. MISRA, JJ.]
c
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, Jtction 6(3)
(a) (i) read with the definition of"settled village" in section 2(n)-Scope of.

Thakur Sangram Singh, the father of the appellant was a jagirdar of
Thikana Diggi in the erstwhile State of Jaipur. Hisjagir was resumed on 1st of
July, 1954 under section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of
D Jagirs Act, 1952 entitling him to compensation on the date of resump.tion 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 ~ett1ed 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 <:S entered in the Revenue records of the village within
the meaning of section 6(3) (a)(i) read with the definition of "settled village"' con-
E tained 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
F 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 1st 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
_JJ
Government were in force, for the purpose of payment of compensation under
the Jagirs Act.
•
G 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 (!)(a) and (b) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 with a
direction to settle fresh rent rates in accordance with the said provision. Pursuant
to the order of the High Court fresh rent rates were settled by the Settlement
H Officer on 6th of June, 1955 with retrospective operation from !st July, 1953.
According to the new settlement the total rental income from the jagir wa:&
reduced from Rs. 1,31,657.48 to Rs. 82,501.50.
THAKUR NARAIN SINGH V. RAJASTHAN 475

The Jagir Commissioner by his order dated 25th November, 19fi0 granted
A
compensation on the basis of the rent rates assessed in 1955. The Jagirdar un-
successfully preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. Sangram Singh

--
1
died in the mean time so his' son the appellant challenged the order of the Board
of Revenue on two grounds: (1) that the co1npensation should have been assess-
ed 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 un-
settled, the High Court rejected both the grounds. Hence the appeal by certifi-
cate under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Allowing the qppeal and remanding the case, the Court

-"f-· HELD: I. As a result of the quashing of the order of Settlement of rent c
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 (dean 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 D
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 E
indicates that the rent fixed by the SettlemeLt Officer shall normally be payable
from the first of July next foliowing the date of such order and.further authorises
the Settlement Offi~er 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 ques-
-tion 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 F
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 mape prior to the date of resumption which would make
the village a settled village as on that date. [480 F-HJ

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 resump- G
tion he would be entitled to con1pensation on the basis of the village being un·
settled. The right of compensation vested in the jagirdar on the date of resump-
tion and he could not be deprived of bis right by a subsequent amendment unless
the amendment in law specifically or by necessary implication provided for depri-
ving the jagirdar of his vested right. There is nothing in the definition of tho
term "settled" under sec. 2 (n) of the Act or in sec. 86 of the Jaipur State Grants H
Land Tenures Act to indicate that the Legislature intended to affect the vested
right. [481 A·D] '
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPEL~ATE 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.
B
S.N. Kacker, K. K. Jain, P. Dayal & S. K. Gupta for the
Appellant.

Badri Das Sharma for the Respondent.

c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MISRA, J. The present appeal by certificate granted under
Article 133 (I) (a) of the Constitution is directed against the judg-
ment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 28th of August, 1969
dismissing writ petition No. 365 of 1962.
D 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, hereinafter
referred to as 'the Jagirs Act, 1952'. The Jagirdar became entitled
E 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.

-
F •
It appears that settlement operations were going on under the
Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947. The rent rates
Pf•iposed 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
G November, 1953. The rent rates fixed were made applicable with
effect from 1st of July, 1953. Obviously, therefore, on the date of
resumption, namely, 1st of July, 1954, rent rates assessed by the
Settlement Officer and approved by the Government on 25th Novem-
ber, 1953 were in force.
H
Sangram Singh, however, challenged the validity of the rent
rates fixed under the settlement by means of writ petition No. 308 of
THAKUR NARAIN SINGH v. RAJASTHAN (Misra, J). 477

1953, which was allowed by the High Court qn 23rd of November, A
1954, quashing the rent rates as they were in flagrant violation of
section 82 (I) (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 \I
order of the High Court dated 23rd November, 1954 the rent rates
were revised and fresh rent rates were fixed by the Settlement Officer
B
on 6th of June, 1955 and they were applied retrospectively from !st
of July, 1953. The revised rent rates were subs•antially 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 accor·

r- c
ding 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 asses-
sed in 1955 retrospectively with effect from 1st of July, 1953. The
High Court, however, held that it was open to the Settlement D
Officer to apply rent rates retrospectively under section 86 of the
Jaipur Stale Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947. But the High Court ·
specifically left open the question whether or not the rent rates asses·
sed in 1955 and applied retrospectively from !St July, 1953 could
form the basis for determining compensation payable to the jagirdar
under the Act. E
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
F

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 G
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 H
Board of Revenue was challenged by his son the petitioner appellant
in the High Court of Rajasthan. Two alternative contentions were
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 3 S.C.R

A raised before the High Coun on behalf of the petitioner : (I) 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 resump·
.B tion; (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.

c
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
D the rent rates assessed in 195 3 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 deter-
mined. The second contention was also negatived on the ground
that fresh rent rates in accordance with the directions of the High
E 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.

F 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
G '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.
H
Shri S.N. Kacker has contended on behalf of the appellant
that the rent rates settleil in 1953 having been quashed by the High
THAKUR NARAIN SINGH V. RAJASTHAN (Misra, J.) 479

Court, the jagir would be deemed to be an unsettled village and, A
-:Y
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 B
the settlement made in . 1953 · still stood for the purpose of
deterninming 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 19 53 had been quashed, but the High Court had directed
c
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 bad cropped in the determina-
tion 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 D
determined on that basis.

Having given our anxiou~ 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 E
the settlement of 1953 was quashed by the High Court on the ground
that the procedure laid down in the statute had not b~en 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 ~nsettled village on
... !
the date of resumption .

(°'-- Shri Badri Das Sharma, however, contended that pursuant to
y
the direction of the High Court in Writ No. 308 of 1953 fresh rent
rates were assessed in 1955 which were made applicable with retros-
" pective effect from !st of July, 1953 and that, therefore, the rent
rates assessed in 1955 will be taken to be the rent rates prevalent on G
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 com-
pensation was to be determined on the basis of the rent rates assessed
in 1955. _In sµpport of bis contention Sbri Sharma referred
to the definition of the 'settled village' in section 2 (n), which
B
reads:

I
480 SUPREME, COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.R.

A "(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 retrospecti- •
vely, and the whole of such village or other area shall be
deemed, for the purposes of this Act and the rules and
B orders made thereunder, to be so settled if such rittes have I

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 contended that
the jagir in question would be deemed to be a settled village as it is
c 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
D 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 se.ction 86 of the ·Jaipur State
· Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947, which runs thus:

"86. Any rent fixed by order of the Settlement Officer
E
under this Act shall be payable from th~ first day of July
next following the date of such order, unless the Settlement
Officer thinks fit, for any reasori to direct that it shall be
payable from some earlier date."
, ..
A plain reading of this section indicates that the rent fixed by the •
F Settlement Officer shall normally be payable from l st 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
G 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
H 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. .. -
THAKUR NARAIN SINGH •• RA1ASTHAN (Misra,].) 481

_,,. There fs yet another aspect from which· the matter can be A
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 com-
pensation on the basis of the village being unsettled. The right of
• compensation vested in the jagirdar on the date of resumption and
.B
he could not be deprived of his right by •a' subsequent amend-

I
ment 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
c
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 io
treat the jagir in question as an unsettled one and determine the D
compensation in accordance with section 7 of the Act.
In the result the appeal is allowed with costs. The orders of
the High Cou.rt, the Board of Revenue and tha{ of the Jagir
Commissioner are set aside and the case is sent back to the Jagir
Commissioner to determine the compensation afresh treating the E
jagir in question ro be unsettled one and in accordance with the pro-
visions 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 com-
pensation so determined, from the date of resumption till the date of

- • payment of the compensation .
F
S.R. 'Appeal allowed.

-...

L I