LexSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR. versus MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF BJBAR A ANR.
v.
MAHARA.JA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR
April 11, 1968
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. Hl!GDB, JJ.]
Blluv Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950-N «;{ica1ib11 u,,,Ur 1. 3 of Act
V'1P"ll all estates in Stat.,_Permanent mdiloana payable
to
Zemil!dar
whether a proprietary or intemudiary irtlerest-Whether tubject to vesting
provision.
1be respondent was the proprietor of certain estates in Bihar. He was
also in receipt of a permanent malikana allowance from the CloYernm<nt.
After the passing of the Bibar Land Reforms Act 1950 fOllowed by a
notification under s. 3 thereof the .,,.tat<:a Of the respondent vest<ld in the
State of Bihar. In 1958 the Slate of Bihar stopped payment all the malikana
allowance Oil the ground that it was a proprietary inte!rest which bad >ested
in the State.
The respondent thereupon filed a petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution. The High Court held that the respoodent's riaht to
the malill:ana was not an intermediary interest and did not cease with Ike
atinction of his proprietary rights in the estate. The State of Bihar
appealed to this Court The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
were: (i) that the right to malikana was an interest in the estates belona-
ing to the respondent which on the issue of the notification under s. 3 be-
came extinguished and (ii) alternatively, the respondent was an interme·
diary of temporary settled estates in respect of which malikana was payable
and on the transference of his intermediary interests in those ...iates, his
right to the malikana stood extinguished and he became entitled only to
the compensation payable under s. 24A
HEID : (i) The history of the malikana allowance showed that it was
a permanent grant of money in lieu of the proprietor's rights in lands
original!} held by him.
The proprietors retained certain estate& and it
was only the interest in these estates that was !Oil on the publication of
the notification under s. 3. The malikana payable to the respondent in
the present case was not an interest in such ..iates and did not ceaae on
the issue of the notification. [740 BJ
(ii) The respondent was not a pro(tietor, tenure-holder or an inter-
mediary of the estates in respect of which malikana was paid to him. The
malikana was not rent or income derived from those estates. Nor was the
malikana an incumbrance on them. The respondent's right to the malikana
was not an intermediary interest in the estates for which compensation was
payable under s. 24A and it did not therefore vest in the G<Wemment.
[740 HJ
Herranund Shoo v. Mst. Ozeerun & Ors., 9 W.R.
102.
Gobinda
Cliunder Roy Chaudhuri v. Rom Chunder Chowdhur,v,
19 W.R. 95,
Hurmuzi Begum v. Hirday Narayan, S Cal. 921 and Jaggo Bai v. U1sa1'a
Lal, 51 All. 439, distinguished.
Bhoalee Singh v. Mst. Neemoo Behoo, 12 W.R. 498, Syed Shah
Najamuddin Hyder v. Syed Zahid Horsein, 8 C.L.J. 300, Maharaia P. S.
Bahodur v. State of Bihar, 18 Pat. 1018, Deo Kuar v. Man Kuar, 21 I.A.
148 and Mahendra Narayan Ray Chowdhuri v. Abdul Gafur Chaudhry,
35 C.W.N. 1233. referred to.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kunwar Sri Trivikram Narain Singh, [1962]
3 S.C.R. 213, relied on.
;
I
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
BDIAll v. PRATAP SINGH (Bachawat, /.)
?35
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JUlllSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 157 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 7, 1960
of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 693 of 1958.
''
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg,
B
S. C. Agarawala, K. M. K. Nair and S. P. Singh, for the appel-
I
!ants.
Sarjoo Prasad and D. Goburdhun, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
Bacbawat, J.-This appeal is directed against an order allow-
ing a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Maharaja
Pratap Singh Bahadur was the proprietor of th~ estates collectively
known as the Gidhaur estate, in Monghyr district. On the publi·
cation of a notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (Bihar Act :XXX of 1950) on July 24, 19~3 'the
Gidhaur estate and the interests of the Maharaja therein vested in
D
the State of Bihar. The Maharaja was receiving a permanent
'
malikana allowance of Rs. 5743/14/6 annually in two equal six
,
monthly instalments as shown in annexure "A" to the writ appli-
cation. The registers and rolls of the recipients of the malikana
maintained by the Collector of the district since a long time past
show that the succeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.