http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: THAKUR BAHADUR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1961

BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SARKAR, A.K. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS

CITATION:  1961 AIR 1338            1962 SCR  (1) 438

ACT: Resumption of Jagirs-Extinguishment of tribute-Hukamnama, if amounts  to tribute-Demand for hukamnama,  if  maintainable- Marwar  Land  Revenue  Act, 1949 (Marwar 40  of  1949),  ss. 185(1),  190(1)-Rajasthan  Land Reforms  and  Resumption  of jagirs Act, 1952 (Rajasthan 6 of 1952), ss. 2(r), 4(a), 8.

HEADNOTE: The  title of the petitioner to succeed to the jagir as  the next heir of his father who died in July 1946 was recognised and a renewal granted in his favour by the Government by  an order  dated March 8, 1952.  Section 190 of the Marwar  Land Revenue Act, imposed an obligation on the succeeding heir to 1949,  execute within one month of the communication to  him of the order a kabuliyat for payment of hukammama and  other fees  according  to the scale of fees prescribed  under  the Act, and the amount payable by the petitioner thereby  which came to Rs. 30,000 was demanded by the respondent-State.  In the  meantime, the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption  of jagirs  Act,  1952, had been passed and came into  force  on February 16, 1952, and S. 4(a) of this Act enacted that "the liability of all jagirdars to pay tribute to the  Government under  any existing jagir Law shall cease", while  "tribute" was  defined by s. 2(r) in the following terms-.   "Tribute’ in  relation  to  a jagir, includes  rekh,  rakam,  chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar nature".  The petitioner challenged the legality of the demand on the ground that the liability to pay hukamnama was a tribute within the  meaning of that word in s. 4(a). Held,  that notwithstanding that the definition of  the  ex- pression "tribute" in s. 2(r) of the Rajasthan Land  Reforms and  Resumption  of jagirs Act, 1952, is  inclusive,  on  an examination  of  the  meaning of the word  as  used  in  the operative  provisions  of the Act, it could  refer  only  to recurring payments which could be said to be attributable to particular  years and not to the type of ad hoc payments  of which hukamnama was an example. Accordingly,  the liability to pay hukamnama is not  compre- hended  within the expression "tribute" under S. 4(a),  and,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

consequently, was not extinguished by the provisions of  the Rajasthan Act of 1952. Thakur Narpat Sinah v. The State of Rajasthan, I.L.R. [1955] Rajasthan 534, referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 200 of 1955. 439 Petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. S.   K. Kapoor and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioner. G.   C. Kasliwal and D. Gupta, for the respondents.  St 1961.  March 17.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAP.,  J.-Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land  Reforms  and Resumption  of  Jagirs Act, 1952 (which  will  be  hereafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act), enacts:               "4. All lands liable to pay land revenue.-Not-               withstanding   anything   contained   in   any               existing jagir law or any other law, all jagir               lands shall, as from the commencement of  this               Act,  be liable to payment of land revenue  to               the Government; and as from such commencement,               the liability of-               (a)   all  Jagirdars  to pay  tribute  to  the               Government under any existing Jagir Law  shall               cease, and The  expression  ’tribute’, the liability to pay  which  was thus  extinguished  from and after the commencement  of  the Act,  was  defined in s. 2(r) of that Act in  the  following terms: ’Tribute’  in  relation to a jagir,  includes  rekh,  rakam, chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar nature; and" In  the absence of the above provision the petitioner  would have  been  under  an obligation to pay  to  the  Government ’hukamnama’  under  s. 190 of the Marwar Land  Revenue  Act, 1949  (referred  to  hereafter  as  the  Marwar  Act)  which codified the earlier law irk that State.  The short question that  is  raised  by  this petition under  Art.  32  of  the Constitution  is whether the liability of the petitioner  to pay ’hukamnama, the nature of which we shall explain  later, has been extinguished by the provision of the Rajasthan  Act above  extracted which, as would be seen, turns  on  whether such  a payment could be comprehended within the  expression ’tribute’.   Relying  on s. 4(a) of the Rajasthan  Act,  the petitioner  resists  the  demand  of he  same  made  by  the respondent-State and impugns the legality of the claim. 440 It  is  necessary  to  set  out  a  few  facts  and  certain provisions  of  the Marwar Act to appreciate the  matter  in controversy.   Thakur  Nathu Singh, the  Jagirdar  of  Ras-a "Scheduled  Jagir"  under the Marwar Act died in  July  1946 leaving  the  petitioner, Thakur Bahadur Singh as  his  next heir.   "Scheduled  Jagirs"  are,  under  the  Marwar   Act, impartable and their line of devolution was prescribed by s. 182 thereof which ran: "Succession  shall  be  governed in the  case  of  Scheduled Jagirs by the rule of primogeniture." The  succession, " however, was not automatic but had to  be recognised by the Government and a renewal granted in favour of  the  successor  before  his  title  to  the  jagir   was perfected.  Sections 183-185 of the Marwar Act which are  of relevance in this connection, ran:               "S.  183.  All grants of Scheduled Jagirs  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

             only  for the life-time of the holder, and  no               person  is entitled to succeed to  such  jagir               until  his  succession is recognized  and  the               grant   is  renewed  in  his  favour  by   His               Highness.               S.    184.   Subject  always to  His  Highness               pleasure,  the grant of a Scheduled Jagir,  on               the  death of the holder, shall be renewed  in               favour  of the person entitled to succeed  him               in accordance with the provisions of this Act.               S.    185(1).  A Scheduled Jagir, on the death               of  the holder, and until the renewal  of  the               grant  in  favour of his successor,  shall  be               resumed  by  the Government  and  taken  under               direct management.               Provided  that  the  claimant  to   succession               shall,  in the, absence of special  orders  of               His Highness be permitted to retain possession               pending  orders of His Highness regarding  the               claim, if he is a direct lineal descendant  in               the male line of the last holder.               (2)........................               (3)........................               (4)........................ The  title of the petitioner to succeed to the jagir as  the next heir of his father was recognised and a renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an 441 order  dated March 18, 1952.  Section 190 of the Marwar  Act imposes  an obligation on a succeeding heir whose title  has been recognised and to whom a renewal of the jagir has  been granted, to make certain payments.  This section runs:               "S.  190(1).  When succession to  a  Scheduled               Jagir  is  recognised  by  His  Highness   and               renewal  of the grant ordered, the  person  in               whose  favour  the  grant  is  ordered  to  be               renewed shall execute within one month of  the               communication   to  him  of  the   orders,   a               ’Kabuliyat’ for payment of Hukamnama and other               fees  payable in accordance with  sub-sections               (2) and (3).               (2)....................................               (3).................................... The amount payable by the petitioner, according to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act, came to Rs. 30,000 and the respondent-State  demanded this sum.  Before,  however,  the date of the order according recognition and granting renewal in  favour of the petitioner, the Rajasthan Act of 1952  had been passed and having received the assent of the  President on February 13, 1952, came into force on publication in  the Gazette  on February 16, 1952, and under s. 4 of  this  Act, whose terms have been set out already, the liability on  the part  of  Jagirdars to pay "all tribute" to  Government  got extinguished. The  question  debated  in  this  petition  is  whether  the liability  to pay ’hukamnama’ or other fees under s. 190  of the Marwar Act is a ’tribute’ from the payment of which  the Jagirdars are thus relieved. It is common ground, subject to a submission of the  learned Advocate-General  for the respondent-State, which  we  shall refer  to a little later, that if the ’hukamnama’ which  the petitioner has been required to pay to the Government was  a ’tribute’  within s. 4 of the Rajasthan Act, it would  cease to  be  exigible  and  cannot be  enforced  from  and  after February  16,  1952, because it is not in dispute  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

petitioner is a Jagirdar and ’hukamnama’ regarding which the demand has been made on him- "is a demand which 56 442 is due under an existing Jagir law", viz., the Marwar Act. The precise question which now arises for our decision  came up  before  the  High Court of Rajasthan in  1955  on  facts exactly parallel with the case before us and a Bench of that Court held in a case reported as Thakur Narpat Singh v.  The State of Rajasthan (1) that ’hukamnama’ and the fees payable under  s. 190 of the Marwar Act were not within,%.  4(a)  of the  Rajasthan Act.  Consequently, the arguments  on  either side  before  us  took the form  of  either  supporting  the reasoning  contained  in that judgment or in  disputing  its correctness.   It  therefore  becomes necessary  for  us  to examine  the reasoning upon which the learned Judges of  the Rajasthan  High  Court reached a conclusion adverse  to  the contention of the petitioner now before us. Before  doing  so, however, it is necessary to advert  to  a point  sought to be raised by the  learned  Advocate-General for Rajasthan for the respondent which would cut across  all this  debate.  He sought to urge that s. 4 of the  Rajasthan Act was not retrospective and that as the recognition of the title of the Petitioner and the renewal of the grant of  the jagir  in  his  favour related back to July  1946  when  the succession opened, the Rajasthan Act could not be invoked to put an end to the obligation which had accrued years  before it  came  into  force notwithstanding  that  the  orders  of recognition and renewal were passed only in March 1952.   In the  circumstances  of this case, however, and  also  regard being had to the point not having been raised in the  answer filed by the State to the writ petition, we did not consider it  proper  to  permit the Advocate-General  to  pursue  the submission. We will now proceed to consider the correctness or otherwise of  the  conclusion  reached by the learned  Judges  of  the Rajasthan  High  Court  in the case just  now  referred  to. Stated briefly, the ratio of their decision was as  follows: Under the law governing jagir grants and the tenure on which they are held in Marwar, a ’hukamnama’ is a levy  chargeable for recognition of the succession of a person to a Scheduled Jagir (1)  I.L.R. [1955] Rajasthan 534. 443 of  his  deceased  ancestor.  The specific  dues,  Rekh  and Chakri  enumerated  in  the definition of  s.  2(r)  of  the Rajasthan Act are those levied in Marwar, the former being 8 per  cent  of the gross rental value of an  estate  and  the second  the  cash  equivalent of the  obligation  to  supply horsemen  or  camelsowars or  foot-soldier,-,  by  Jagirdars dependent  upon the value of the estate.   Similar  payments are  known as ’Rakam’ in the State of Bikaner and  ’Chatund’ in  the State of Udaipur, these States being the  components of  the  State of Rajasthan.  All these dues,  Rekh,  Rakam, Chatund  and Chakri were annual and recurring payments  made by  Jagirdars.   When therefore the definition  in  s.  2(r) concluded with the words other charges of a similar nature’, it must necessarily be held that these general words  should be  confined  to  charges which were  also  recurring.   The ’hukamnama’  and  other  dues payable under s.  190  of  the Marwar Act, however, were not recurring payments and were in consideration  of  the ruler exercising  his  discretion  to recognise  a  succession and grant renewal of the  jagir  in favour  of  the  next  heir.  In  other  words,  these  were payments  due to the ruler in recognition of  his  sovereign

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

right  to  the ownership of the land which  was  statutorily embodied in ss. 169-170 of the Marwar Act which ran:               "S.  169.  The ownership of all land vests  in               His  Highness and all jagirs, bhoms,  sansans,               dolis  or  similar proprietary  interests  are               held and shall be deemed to be held as grant,-               from His Highness.                          and               S.    170.   All grants shall be held  by  the               original grantee or his successors during  His               Highness’ pleasure." The  payments under s. 190 of the Act therefore were not  of the same category as the payments enumerated in s. 2 (r)  of the Rajasthan Act and hence could not be comprehended within the meaning of the expression ’tribute’. The same matter was also put in a slightly different form by saying   that  whereas  the  payments  enumerated   in   the definition  of  ’tribute’ were those made  by  Jagirdars  as such,  i.e., after they got into possession,  a  ’hukamnama’ was a payment made not by a 144 Jagirdar  but  by a person who was merely a  claimant  to  a jagir  and  as  a  condition  of  his  title  to  it   being recognised. The  correctness of this reasoning was challenged before  us by  learned  Counsel for the petitioner who urged  that  the learned  Judges of the High Court did not accord  sufficient consideration to the fact that the definition in s. 2(r) was an  ’inclusive’  definition and  could,  therefore,  include others  not  falling within the enumerated types.   In  this connection,  learned Counsel relied upon the meaning of  the word ’tribute’ in Webster’s New International Dictionary and in the Oxford English Dictionary, Volume IT.  In the former, one of the meanings given is:               "A  tax,  impost, duty, rental, or  the  like,               paid  by a subject vassal to his sovereign  or               lord". and in the latter:               "A  tax or impost paid by one prince or  state               to another in acknowledgement of submission or               as   the   price  of   peace,   security   and               protection". He therefore urged that the expression ’tribute’ in s.  2(r) would   include  those  which  fell  within   the   ordinary dictionary  meaning  of  the term-,  in  addition  to  those specifically   enumerated   therein.   If  the   word   were understood  in its ordinary dictionary meaning  without  any statutory  definition, learned Counsel added, the  incidence of  recurrence  would not be a necessary  attribute  of  the concept of a ’tribute’.  The submission was that the learned Judges  of the Rajasthan High court erred in  confining  the meaning  of ’tribute’ to the enumerated payments and  "other charges  of a similar nature", without taking  into  account the fact that this was an inclusive and not an exhaustive or even  an  illustrative definition.  We see  force  in  these submissions  and it must also be said that the  argument  in this  form and the construction of s. 2(r) from this  aspect has  not  been  considered  by the  learned  Judges  of  the Rajasthan High Court. We have, therefore, to examine whether the submission can be sustained.  Our task is, to discover whether the  expression ’tribute’,  as  it  occurs in the  Rajasthan  Act,  includes payments of the type now in 445 controversy.  Apart from the usual express saving  contained in  the opening words of s. 2 that the definitions  set  out

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

are  to be applied "unless the context otherwise  requires", the meaning of the word ’tribute’ has to be ascertained from a consideration of the various provisions of the Act and not merely  from  s. 4(a) of the Act read in the  light  of  the definition.  It would be seen that in ultimate analysis  the question of construction posed for our decision may be  thus set out: The four specific enumerated dues in the definition in s. 2(r) are recurring annual payments.  "Other charges of a  like  nature"  which  follows  this  enumeration,   would obviously partake of that character and they would also have to  be similarly annual. and recurring.  This was the  basis of the decision of the learned Judges of the Rajasthan  High Court  and  the correctness of this view up  to  this  point cannot  be  and  has not, been  disputed.   The  definition, however,  being "inclusive" and not "meaning" these,  it  is said it must "include" something else.  It must, however, be added  that  the  possibility cannot  be  ignored  that  the definition was made inclusive out of caution and with a view not  to exclude any payment which jagirdars were  making  or were under an obligation to make, to Government, seeing that the  Act  was to apply to an integrated  State  composed  of several  States  in  which  there  might  have  been   great diversity of nomenclature in designating these payments, and so  as not to exclude any payment which would squarely  fall within  the category regarding which provision was  made  in the operative portion of the enactment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that every  payment by  a Jagirdar to the Government, whatever be the nature  of the payment and whatever be the consideration therefore,  is included  in  the expression.  If the  expression  ’tribute’ occurred only in s. 4(a) in the operative provisions of  the Act,  there might be much to be said for the view  presented by  learned Counsel for the petitioner and for invoking  its dictionary  meaning to ascertain the content of  that  word. The  Act,  however, has used the word ’tribute’  in  several other sections and in different contexts and we 446 consider that the precise ambit of this expression of rather indefinite import as contemplated or intended by the framers of this Act has necessarily to be gathered from the entirety of  the  provisions.  The ,word tribute’ was  apparently  no equivalent in the local languages, so that it was  obviously used as a convenient and compendious expression to designate certain  imposts  which  were levied by the  rulers  of  the several  States  which  integrated  to  form  the  State  of Rajasthan.   Further,  this  circumstance  should  obviously induce  some  caution before the dictionary meaning  of  the English word tribute’ is treated as expressing the intention of the framers of the Rajasthan Act. We shall therefore proceed to set out and consider the other provisions  of  the enactment in which the word is  used  to discover the intentions of the framers of the Act as to what they meant by it.  Before proceeding further, we should add, that  as under s. 4(a) of the Rajasthan Act, the payment  of Land  Revenue computed under it is to be the substitute  for the  ’tribute’ previously demandable or paid, the manner  in which the land revenue under the Act is determined would  be relevant  as throwing light on for what it  is  substituted. We  have already set out the terms of s. 4 of the  Rajasthan Act under which in substitution of the payment of  ’tribute’ all  lands are made liable to the payment of  land  revenue. The amount of land revenue payable by a Jagirdar is fixed by s.  8 and this is based in part on the annual rental  income which could be derived from the jagir computed in the manner set  out in ss. 6 and 7. For our present purpose s. 8 is  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

importance,  because the amount of ’tribute’  payable  forms one  of  the  factors for determining the  amount  of  ’land revenue payable’.  Section 8 enacts:               "S.  8.  Amount of land  revenue  payable.-The               land revenue payable by a Jagirdar in  respect               of his jagir    lands shall be-               (a)   for  the agricultural year  1951-52,  an               amount equal to the amount of tribute  payable               by him to the Government for that year;               (b)   for  the agricultural year  1952-53  and               each of the six succeeding agricultural years-               447               (i)   in  the case of jagir lands  the  annual               rental  income  of which as  determined  under               section  6 or section 7, exceeds five  hundred               rupees  but  does  not  exceed  five  thousand               rupees, one sixteenth of such rental income or               the amount of the tribute which was payable by               the Jagirdar for the agricultural year 195051,               whichever is greater;               (ii)  in  the case of jagir lands  the  rental               income of which as determined under section  6               or  section  7 exceeds five  thousand  rupees,               one-eighth of such annual rental income or the               amount of the tribute which was payable by the               Jagirdar  for the agricultural  year  1950-51,               whichever is greater.               Explanation.-For  the purpose of  this  clause               the amount of tribute payable by a Jagirdar to               the Government for the agricultural year 1950-               51  shall be deemed to be the amount  of  such               tribute less the amount of any tribute payable               to  such  jagirdar by any person to  whom  the               Jagirdar may have granted any of    his  jagir               lands;                (c)  for  the agricultural year  1959-60  and               subsequent years,  one  fourth of  the  rental               income  from  the jagir  lands  as  determined               under sections 6 and 7;                Provided that-                (i)  where  no  tribute was  payable  by  the               Jagirdar before the commencement of the Act or               where  the whole of the tribute has been  paid               before  such  commencement,  the  jagir  lands               shall be deemed to be exempt from the  payment               of  land  revenue for  the  agricultural  year               1951-52;               (ii)  where  the jagirdar has paid a  part  of               the  tribute before the commencement  of  this               Acts, the land revenue payable by him for  the               agricultural  year 1951-52 shall be an  amount               equal ’to the balance     of the tribute which               would have been payable by     him  for   that               year if this Act had not been passed; and                (iii)     the Government may direct that  for               the  purposes of clauses (b) and (e)  of  this               section,  the rental income of any jagir  land               for  all  or  any  of  the  agricultural  year               mentioned in those clauses shall be               448               determined or redetermined on the basis of the               rental  income which actually accrued  to  the               jagirdar from the jagir in such year or years,               as the case may be." It will be seen that this section speaks of tribute  payable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

for the, year specified-1951-52 or 1950-51and it is  obvious that  the  tribute  here  referred  to  could  only  be  the recurring  payments like those enumerated in the  definition in  s.  2(r) to which could be attributed the  character  of being  a payment for a specific year.  Besides, it will  be, seen  that  under s. 8(b) the land revenue payable  for  the seven agricultural years 1952-53 to 1959-60 is to be  either a fraction of the annual rental income or "the amount of the tribute which would be payable by the Jagirdar for the  year 1950-51  whichever  is greater".  Surely it  would  be  most unreasonable  to  hold  that if during the  year  1950-51  a Jagirdar  made a payment of ’hukamnama’ this ad hoe  payment should  be treated as part of the tribute for that year  and the  Jagirdar made liable to pay sums including  ’hukamnama’ for the seven years 1952-53 to 1959-60. The  main  object  of  the  Rajasthan  Act  was  to   effect resumption of jagir lands by eliminating intermediaries  and the ’tribute’ payable by the erstwhile Jagirdars enters into the  calculation for computing the compensation  payable  to them  on  such resumption.  The second schedule to  the  Act sets-out  the principles governing the compensation  payable to   Jagirdars.    It  may  broadly  be  stated   that   the compensation  payable,  to Jagirdars is  determined  on  the basis  of a multiple of the net income of the basic year  as determined  under  r.  1 of the second  schedule.   The  net income is computed by first determining the gross income  of the  Jagirdars  under  various heads  including  the  rental income  and  deducting  therefrom  certain  outgoing   which included the "tribute’ Rule 4 of schedule 2 provides:               "4.  Net income.-The net income of a  Jagirdar               for  the  basic year shall  be  calculated  by               deducting from his gross income therefore,-               (i)   the amount that the Jagirdar would have               449               been  liable  to  pay  to  the  Government  as               tribute,  and, in the case of grantee  from  a               Jagirdar,  to the Jagirdar in respect of  such               grant, for the basic year if this Act had  not               been passed;               (ii)  any sums of recurring nature due to  the               Government  from the Jagirdar, or in the  case               of grantee from the Jagirdar to the  Jagirdar,               for  the basic year on any account other  than               land revenue,; and                .................................... It  is  impossible to conceive that the framers of  the  Act would have intended that the payment of a ’hukamnama’ in the basic year should have a permanent effect on the quantum  of compensation  payable  to a Jagirdar  under  the  provisions above extracted. In  addition to the compensation for the presumption of  the jagir  under  the  provisions  of  the  Rajasthan  Act,  the Jagirdars  are  entitled to be paid a  rehabilitation  grant under Chapter VIII A of the Act.  The method of  calculation of this amount is set out in Schedule III of the Act and for this  purpose Jagirdars are classified on a graduated  scale into  various categories depending on the gross income  from the estate.  This is followed by a proviso in these terms:               "Provided that for the purpose of  calculating               the rehabilitation grant payable to a Jagirdar               falling   in  this  category   such   marginal               adjustments shall be made as will ensure  that               a Jagirdar having a higher net income does not               get  an amount by way of rehabilitation  grant               which is less than that payable to a  Jagirdar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

             having  a lower net income.  Provided  further               that,  in comparing Jagirdars  with  different               amounts of income for the purpose of the first               proviso to this sub-clause,-               (i)   Jagirdars  who were riot paying  tribute               shall be compared only with Jagirdars who were               not paying tribute,               (ii)  Jagirdars who were paying tribute  shall               be  compared  only  with  Jagirdars  who  were               paying’ tribute,               (iii) Jagirdars who were paying any sums of               57               450               recurring  nature  referred to  in  sub-clause               (ii) of clause 4 of the Second Schedule  shall               be  compared  only with  Jagirdars Who  were               paying such sums, and               (iv)  in respect of Jagirdars who were  paying               tribute  or  any  sums  of  recurring   nature               referred to in sub. clause (ii) of clause 4 of               the  Second Schedule at different scales,  the               Government shall prescribe a percentage of the               gross income at which the amount of tribute or               such sums in respect of each Jagirdar shall be               calculated irrespective of whether the  amount               of  tribute or such sums of  recurring  nature               that were being actually paid by him." What we have said earlier about the construction of the word ’tribute’ in r. 4 of Schedule II would equally apply to  the construction  of  that  expression  as  it  occurs  in   the provision extracted from Schedule III. Notwithstanding therefore that the definition in s. 2(r)  of the Rajasthan Act is ’inclusive’ it appears to us from    an examination  of  the  meaning of the word  as  used  in  the operative provisions of the Act, that it could refer only to recurring payments which could be said to be attributable to particular  years and not to the type of ad hoc payments  of which hukamnamas and patta-fees are examples.  It might very well be that the words at the end of s. 2(r) "other  charges of  a  similar nature" might not exhaust  all  the  payments which a ’tribute’ connotes but still if the rest of the  Act indicates   unmistakably  the  intention,  that   the   word ’tribute’  has  been  used in a special  sense  taking  into account  the law and usage obtaining in the locality,  these cannot  be  disregarded in favour of  a  wider  construction based merely upon the dictionary meaning of the  expression. We  need  hardly  add that the provision to  which  we  have adverted  should suffice to show that the  construction  put forward by learned Counsel for the petitioner would work  to the grave disadvantage of the Jagirdars and would cause them deprivation  which could never have been intended.  We  have thus  reached the same conclusion as the learned  Judges  of the  Rajasthan  High Court, though on a  different  line  of reasoning. 451 On the construction which we have adopted of the  expression ’tribute’  in s. 4 of the Rajasthan Act the  petitioner  can have   no   legal  or  legitimate  grievance   against   the enforcement  of the payment made against him.  The  petition fails  and is dismissed.  There will st, be no order  as  to costs.                        Petition dismissed.