SHANTI BAI Vs. BIHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 22g of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the Board of Revenue has been made in the following circumstances.

(2.) ONE Draupadibai was the last holder of certain Khasra numbers in Bhumiswami rights. She died in June 1961. On her death the Tahsilder, Gadarwarn, ordered mutation of the land in favour of the respondent No. 1 Biharilal. The petitioners then preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadanvara, which was rejected. A second appeal preferred by them before the Commissioner. Jabalpur division, may the same fate. Thereafter, they filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed.

(3.) DRAUPADIBAI had a sister Chironjibai who predeceased her and the petitioners shanti Bai and Sushila Bai are the daughters of Chironjibai. The third petitioner is a daughter of Draupadibai's predeceased son Badriprasad. The respondent No. 1 biharilal is a cousin of Draupadibai's father Ganesh Datta, being the son of Ganesh datta's uncle Goreyalal. The mutation was done by the Tahsildar in accordance with Section 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), as it stood at the time of the death of Draupadibai when the succession to the lands opened. After the death of Draupadibai and even after the Tahsildar passed the order of mutation on 29th November 1961, Section 164 of the Code was amended by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Second amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Amending Act ). Section 2 of the amending Act substituted the following provision in place of the order of succession given in Section 164 of the devolution of the interest of a Bhumiswami on his death: "164. Devolution. Subject to his personal law the interest of a bhumiswami shall, on his death, pass by inheritance, survivorship or bequest, as the case may be. " the petitioners contended before the Commissioner as well as the Board of revenue that the succession to the Bhumiswami lands left by Draupadibai should be in accordance with the new Section 164 of the Code. This contention was rejected by the Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue. They now seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Tahsildar as upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.