RANI RATNESH KUMARI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 02-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
17 
A 
RANI RATNESH KUMARI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
August 2, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.J 
B 
U.P. Zan1indari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Sections 3, 3( 12), 
3(21)-Whether the taluqdar was an "intennediary" within the 
meaning 
of 
s. 3(12)-1¥/iether the taluqdar's interest in the Biswadari villages was extin-
guished even after the fixation of the "n1afika11a"-T-Vhether "rnalikana" is 
in 
rhe nature of pension. 
1,'[auchhanna taluqa or 1\.fainpuri Raj was a part of the Mainpuri district in 
C 
U.P. The district originally belonged to the Nawab Wazir of Oudh who ceded 
it to the East India Co. in 1801. 
Raja Dalel Singh the ancestor of the appel-
lant was then the owner of the Manchhanna taluqa. 
A part of his ~tate was 
taken over by the British Government. 
Settlement operations of the 
taluqa 
l.ands were carried out from time to time. 
As it carne to notice 
during 
the, 
settlement operations in 1840 that there were under-proprietors or biswadars in 
133 villages of the taluka, it woo decided by the Governrnent that \vhile 133 
0 
'· illages would be settled with biswadars other villages would remain under the 
dir~ct n1ant1gement of the Raja and that he \vould receive an "llowancc er 
"malikana'' for the 133 villages at I Rr;-;-
of the assets leaving 60'\, of the 
rea]j.<;ation with the Government <!,<; land revenue and 32tt0 with bi:>warJars a5 
their share. 
The settlement was revised thereafter and the assets of the bis-
wadars were redistributed so as to give 55 percent of the realisation to the 
Government as revenue, 20} to the Raja <is "malikana" and 24-! to the biswa-
dars as their share. Then came the settlement of 1872 
·when 
Raja 
Ram 
Pratap Singh tried to reopen the question of direct engagement with the Gov-
ernment even in regard to the bisviardari villages. It was ultimately 
agreed 
that the Raja \vould receive, in respect of each village, the san1e 
amount as 
before by way of malikana and the settlement v,;ould he made directly 
with 
the bis\vadars \Vho Vv'Otild bear the burden of the arrangement. The Malikana 
thus \Vorked out to Rs. 22,502/- per year. 
lt \Vas however stipulated that it 
\Vould be reduced to 1 /11 of the biswadari payment on the death of Raja Ram 
Pratap Singh. 
An order was issued in 1873 by which 
the 
Raja was 
held 
cn1itled to malikana at the rate of 5 per cent of the annual rental. Sheo 1Vlang:1! 
Singh Tuho \.Vas the last male dc~ccndant of H_aja Dalel Singh thus received 
Rs. 8946-9-4 as annual rental of the 133 bis\\'adari villages. 
He died in 1938 
and thereafter the malikana was received 
by 
his 
'>Vidow 
Rani 
Prabhuraj 
Kumari. 
After her death in 1951 the malikana \Vas paid 
to her daughter 
Rani Ratnesh Kumari the present appellant upto March 1953. 
Further 
pay-
ment was stopped because of the vesting of the estate in the Slate under the 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms ,'\ct, 1950. 
Efforts of the appel-
lant for its restoration did not bear f rnit. 
She filed a writ petil ion in the 
/\llahabad I--Iigh Court on September 16. J95R for qua5hi•.1g the S!atc Govern-
ment's order refusing the payment of the malikana an<l for a direction that 
it should be continued to be paid to her along \1i1ith arrears. She based 
her 
claim mainly on the ground that the malikana \vas in the nature of a pension 
or allowance "in lieu of the taking over, forfeiture or acquisition" of the per-
petual hereditary rights of the Raja in 133 villages and \Vas not rent or revenue 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 1 S.C.R. 
derived from land. 
She pleaded that the name of the Raja was never· entered 
in the tecord of rights of the 133 villages and that she was neither an inte.r-
mediary with respect to those villages nor those villages were included in ht::r 
estate. A single Judge of the High Court upheld the petitioner's contentions, 
allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the State Government against 
her and directed the payment of the arrears of the malikana as 
well 
as 
its 
future payment. 
The Division Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the 
single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. 
Dismissing the appeal by certificate. this Court 
HELD : ( 1) Manchhanna was an estate in Uttar Pradesh within the meaning 
of s. 3(8) of the Act. 
[19F, 22BJ 
(2) Section 3(12) of the Act defines the expression "intermediary" 
with 
reference to any estate as a 
"proprietor, 
un

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.