On the other hand,learned counsel for the respondent contended that a determination under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act that a particular Jagir 'was a proprietary one necessarily implied that the grant was of soil and the grantee was entitled to mines and mineral products which were expressly saved under s.10 of the Act and in any event on the facts obtaining in the instant case the competent authority acting under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act,while coming to the conclusion that the respondent's Jagir was proprietary one,bad relied upon the unqualified nature of the grant and also considered the evidence led before it touching upon the several rights such as right to sell fire-wood,babul trees,saltrees,timru trees,right to sell agriculture land and house sites; right to sell stones and gravel,right to sell or allow use of land for manufacture of bricks-enjoyed by the respondent since the time the grant had been made in his favour by the then Ruler and it was on the basis of such evidence that tile competent authority had come to the conclusion that the respondent's Jagir was a proprietary one