STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SARDARBEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on certificate granted under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution is directed against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court.

(2.) The facts are:One Sardar Shermia Bapumia was the holder of what he alleged to be a political pension. He was paid such a pension till July 31, 1953 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. On the coming into force of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1953 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act), from August 1, 1953, payment of this pension was discontinued.

(3.) Bapumiya thereupon filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction ordering the Respondent-State and its officers to pay to the petitioner and his heirs in perpetuity, a sum of Rs. 500/- with effect from August 1, 1953. It was contended that the pension was a political pension and not a personal inam and consequently, the pension did not fall within the definition of "personal inam" in the Inam Abolition Act and could not be abolished thereunder. Subsequently, at the instance of writ-applicant, the High Court by its order, dated February 27, 1963, deleted the words "in perpetuity" at the end of the prayer clause (A) in the writ application. By the same order in view of the statement made by the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent-State to the effect, that the pension that was being paid to the petitioner was not a personal inam and as such, could not be abolished under the Act, the High Court passed an order directing the respondents, their servants and agents to pay to the writ-applicant and his heirs the sum of Rs. 500/- p. m. as and by way of political pension with effect from August 1, 1953. Being aggrieved by this order dated February 27, 1963, the appellant-herein filed on April 10, 1964, a review petition, which was subsequently amended on December 21, 1965, for a review of the said order on the ground that there was an error on the face of it. It was stated that the appellant had committed a bona fide mistake due to the ignorance of the authorities in not taking up the defence that the aforesaid political pension stood resumed under the provisions of the Bombay Saramjams, Jahagirs and other, Inams of Political Nature Resumption Rules, 1952 made in exercise of powers under the Bombay Rent Free Estate Act, 1852 and the Land Revenue Acts 1 and 2 of 1863 with effect from 1952.