RAVRAJA PADAMSINHJI DOLATSINHJI Vs. COLLECTOR MEHSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an interesting petition raising the question of interpretation of the grant Annexure B. The petitioners are collaterals of one Hamirsinhji who died on 8-1-75 and who was the brother of the one time Ruler of the Idar State. The Ruler had conferred on said Hamirsinhji the rights of two villages Techava and Acharal as per his order no. 14 dated 11-3-48. Said Hamirsinhji was carrying on operations of extracting China clay from the subsoil of those two villages and he had entered into an agreement of lease with one firm M/s Ambee India Private Ltd. On the demise of said Hamirsinhji the present petitioners who are his near agnates claimed to have inherited all the rights which deceased Hamirsinhji had. The Collector however held by his impugned order Annexure D that despite the recognition of the rights of deceased Hamirsinhji vis a vis the State by the Division Bench of this Court an the reported judgment of M/s. Ambee India Pvt. Ltd. v. Rao Raja Hamirsinhji A. I. R. 1972 Gujarat 137 (which matter is lying on the anvil of the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat and therefore a subjudice matter). The present petitioners claiming not as the lineal descendants but as agnates of late Hamirsinhji could not put forward any claim to the rights which deceased Hamirsinhji presumbaly had. The present petitioners have therefore moved this court for a declaration of their rights of inheritance under the principles laid down under the Hindu Succession Act on intestate succession.

(2.) The Collector interpreted the grant Annexure B which was translated by the Division Bench in that M/s. Ambee India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) against the petitioners. The said translation is reproduced below:

(3.) The Division Bench of this Court interpreted the said parvana or order to mean an absolute grant to Hamirsinhji. In the course of the judgment the Division Bench has observed as follows: