SARDAR GOVINDRAO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants claiming to be the descendants of former Ruling Chiefs in the Hoshangabad and Nimar Districts of Madhya Pradesh applied under the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemption Act, 1948, for grant of money or pension as suitable maintenance for themselves. By that Act, every estate, mahal, village or land which was exempted from the payment of the whole or part of land revenue by special grant of, or contract with the Crown, or under the provision of any law or rule for the time being in force or in pursuance of any other instrument was after the appointed date made liable to land revenue from the year 1948-49, notwithstanding anything contained in the grant, contract, law, rule or instrument. The appellants held estates in the two districts on favourable terms as Jahgirdars, Manufidars and Ubaridars, and enjoyed an exemption from payment of land revenue amounting in the aggregate to Rupees 27,828 / 5 / - yearly. On the passing of the Act the exemption was lost and they claimed to be entitled to grant of money or pension under the provisions of the Act about to be set out. They applied to the Deputy Commissioner, who forwarded their application to the State Government. The State Government by its order No. 993/XVI-4, dated April 26, 1955 rejected their petition. No reasons are contained in that order.

(2.) The appellants thereupon filed a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government. In that petition they contended that the rejection of their petition by the State Government without giving any reasons amounted to no decision at all and was an improper and illegal exercise of the power vested in the State Government by S. 5 of the Act. The State Government resisted the petition by contending that the appellants were not descendants of any former Ruling Chief and further that the exercise of the power by the State Government was proper and legal.

(3.) The petition in the High Court was heard and disposed of by a Full Bench. The learned Chief Justice, who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench held that the State Government was not compelled to grant either money or pension because the exercise of the power under S. 5 was discretionary and the petition, therefore, was incompetent. No other question was gone into by the High Court even though a suit is barred under the provisions of the Act and a petition under Art. 226 would appear to be the only remedy in case the State Government failed to comply with the terms of the Act, or acted in an illegal manner.