Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. On May 30, 1955, on account of the enactment of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as "Ajmer Act of 1955"), which came into effect with effect from June 23, 1955, the institution of Istimrari was abolished and the Istimrari estate vested in the State in accordance with the terms of the said Act. Before the compensation payable in lieu of resumption of the estate was determined, the assessee, by a deed of partition dated August 18, 1955, the compensation which was payable in lieu of such resumption, divided amongst the members of his family numbering five consisting of himself, his wife and three sons by making a narration of that fact in his books of account. After the Ajmer Act of 1955 came in existence, and the assessee had executed a deed of partition of the compensation payable under the Act, the State of Ajmer, which then was Part "C" State, merged with the State of Rajasthan in accordance with the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and became part of the State of Rajasthan and with a view to secure uniformity in the revenue laws in the new State of Rajasthan as formed by Section 10 of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, as in force in the pre-reorganisation State of Rajasthan, with suitable modifications therein for making it applicable to the territories of erstwhile Abu, Ajmer and Sunil areas, were extended by enacting the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957 being Act No. 2 of 1958. By this Act, the Revenue Regulation of 1877 as well as the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, were repealed.

30. It may be clarified here that so far as compensation receivable by the assessee in lieu of vesting of the estate in the State, on abolition of Istimardari and its partition is concerned, it is not the subject-matter of this reference and it has been held to be partitioned by volition by the erstwhile holder of the estate. Agricultural lands and agricultural income not being subject to application of the Income-tax Act or Wealth-tax Act, have not been included in the question, but has a vital importance inasmuch as the immovable properties in question are held to be impartible because they have been impressed with the character of impartibility by act of parties in some time of antiquity, at least before the assessee has inherited in 1938, inasmuch as the case set up by the assessee had been that he inherited the property as an impartible estate in 1938. Therefore, the property which has been impressed with the original impartible estate, on the resumption of the original estate, the remainder cannot retain the character different from the character of compensation given in lieu of the resumed estate, or the property which is allowed to be retained by the assessee after resumption under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1955.

Explanation.-- Notwithstanding any partition made on or after the 1st day of June, 1952, a family shall be deemed to be joint".

33. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions suggest in unmistakable terms that compensation is to be determined on the basis of the nature of Istimrari whether it is an individual or a joint Hindu family estate. In the case of a joint family estate, Clause (1) of the Schedule considers the joint family consisting of father, his male lineal descendents in the male line of descent as one single separate unit and compensation is paid to that family as a unit. It is to be noticed that the Legislature has not used merely the expression "joint estate" nor merely "joint family estate", but has used the expression "joint Hindu family estate". This is clear acceptance of the existence of intermediary estates as belonging to joint Hindu family consisting of all the coparceners consisting of lineal male descendents of the last holder of the estate, who had acquired the property by succession, albeit by the rule of primogeniture. On the undisputed facts the Istirarari estate of the assessee was an ancestral estate belonging to the Hindu undivided family of which Rao Narain Singh was the last holder. The compensation granted to the holder of the estate namely, father Narain Singh was not only for himself alone but for himself and his family which included all members in the male line of descent. Thus, the family, accepting the basic principle of Hindu coparcenary, as a unit was recognised to be allotted compensation on resumption of estate which is held by the holder at the time of vesting as a property of the Hindu undivided family. On that premise, the estate on resumption for the purposes of compensation is to be considered to be an undivided coparcenary and the compensation is so determined and paid to the family. It may be further pertinent to notice that for the purposes of determination of compensation payable to a unit, as per Clause (1) of the Schedule partitions made after the first day of June, 1952, were not recognised, and no separate compensation was determinable in respect of any person who is considered as member of the family, if he has separated after June 1, 1952. Therefore, it must be held that on resumption, the compensation paid to the assessee was in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family, notwithstanding that he has expressed his intention to partition the same in 1955, the compensation receivable by him and which was paid to them.

36. In coming to this conclusion, we are fortified by a chain of decisions holding that on alteration of the character of the holding of the estate and on abolition of the office or the estate, the incidence of impartibility is lost and the property if otherwise Hindu undivided family property, assumes the character of a fullsome Hindu undivided family property minus incidence of impartibility.

37. This is the view taken by a learned single judge of this court in Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1984 Raj 174. This question arose in connection with determination of the ceiling limit land he could hold after resumption of erstwhile Amli Jagir in Bhilwara District. The Jagir was resumed on August 23, 1954. Proceedings for determination of the extent of ceiling area which lawfully could be held by Gopal Singh were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The assessee has claimed that since the estate was an ancestral impartible estate belonging to the Hindu undivided family, on resumption of Jagir, Khudkasht lands of the Jagirdar were allowed to be held by him as a Khatedar tenant and accordingly though after the resumption of the Jagir, the petitioner, Gopal Singh, became a Khatedar tenant of lands standing in his name, yet the said lands were held by him not as individual but the lands were ancestral property held by him as a karta of the Hindu undivided family.