Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act no. VI of 1952), hereinafter referred ,to as the '.Act'. A notice was issued by the Collector, Bikaner to respondent no. 1, on August 23, 1954 asking him to hand over the charge oi the jagir but respondent no. 1 did not comply with the notice as he had filed a writ application in the High Court challenging the B validity of the Act. A subsequent notice was issued to respondent no. 1, by the Collector on May 14, 1955 directing him to hand over charge of the jagir. Respondent no. 1 actually handed over charge of the jagir on September 27, 1955 and at the same time submitted a list of his private properties under s. 23 of the Act. In the said list was included 5490 bighas and odd of agricultural c land in villages Mirgarh, Anandgarh and Rawla in Ganganagar district and Anupgarh in Bikaner district which respondent no. 1 claimed as his khudkasht land. On March 18, 1957 respondent no. l made an application to the Tahsildar, Anupgarh to correct entries in the revenue records and to show the area claimed by him as his khudkasht land. After an enquiry the Tahsildar, Anup. garh forwarded th~ application to the Assistan: Collector, GangaD nagar recommending the correction of the entries as prayed for by respondent no. I. The Assistant Collector forwarded the papers to tbe Collector, Ganganagar who recommended to the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. that the correction of entries may be made. By his order dated November 30, 1958 the Divi· sional Commissioner, Bikaner accorded sanction and directed the E Collector to enter the disputed lands in the revenue records as khudkash\ lands ·of respondent no. L On appeal to the Board of Revenue the case was remanded to the Divisional Commissioner on July 24, l 959 with a direction that he should refer the matter to the fagir Commissioner and till his decision was received the entries in the revenue record should not be altered. It appears that th~ record of the case was transmitted for compliance to the F Sub-Divisio11al Officer, Raisinghnagar by the office of' the Commissioner of Bikaner, who, after making an enquiry, submitted his recommendation to the· Jagir Commissioner instead of sending it to the Divisional Commissioner to correct the relevant entries. Meanwhile, the Director of Colonisation came to know of the proceedings which were going on and therefore he addressed a G ctter on December 22, 1958 to the Divisional Cpmmissioner, Bikancr to review his order dated November 30. 1958 and reques'.ed him to refer the matter to the Jagir Commissioner who wa the only competent authority to detennine the nature of the disputed property under s. 23(2) of the Act. On receipt of the said letter the Divisional Commissioner reviewed his previous order H of November 30, 1958 and ultimately dismissed the objections of Director of Colonisation on March 5, 1959. It appears that the Additional Jagir Commissioner after receiving the paners from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar also decided the matter on
