CHINTAMAN WAIJNATH PANDIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing two orders passed by the State Government on 4th April 1963 and 7th September 1964 in circumstances to be presently stated. The applicant also prays that a direction be issued to the opponent-State for the hearing and decision according to law of the representation submitted by him in regard to his rights in certain maufi lands which was rejected by the impugned orders.

(2.) THE applicant claims that according to a Sanad granted in 1911 by the then Maharaja of the former Dewas State (Senior), certain maufi land situated in village Datottar admeasuring 11.78 acres was given exclusively to his father and some other lands situated in mauza Datottar and Dewas were given jointly to his father and two uncles; that after the death of his father the maufi lands measuring 11.78 acres situated in Datottar were mutated exclusively in his name, but that other lands with the consent of all the members continued to to be under the management of his uncle Parashuramji and after his death the respondent No. 2 Dr. Chandrashekhar was managing the lands and is still doing so. His further averment is that in 1950 when the respondent No. 2 declined to give him his share in the income of the joint maufi lands he complained to the Deputy Commissioner, Maufi Department, Indore, on 30th January 1954 claiming his share of profits for the previous four years. THE petitioner's com- plaint was enquired into by the Collector, Indore, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him according to an order passed on 28th December 1954 by the M. P. No. 576 of 1964 decided on 15-12-1965. N. Raj Pramukh of Madhya Bharat State with regard to the distribution and disposal of aukaf and maufi cases. On 14th April 1959 the Collector, Indore, made an order in favour of the petitioner. THE respondent Chandrashekhar then appealed to the Commissioner against the Collector's order contending that the Collector had no jurisdiction to pass any final order in the matter and that he should have submitted the case to the Commissioner for orders. This contention found favour with the Commissioner who set aside the order of the Collector and remitted the matter to him for a fresh enquiry and report. This order of the Commissioner was upheld in revision by the Board of Revenue.

(3.) SHRI Chaphekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, relying on Shekh Sultan Sani v. Shekh Ajmodin 20 I A 50., submitted that the question whether the petitioner was or was not entitled to any share in the maufi lands under the management of the respondent No. 2 was one which the Government alone was competent to decide in the performance of its sovereign rights; and that the applicant could not, therefore, claim that he should have been heard by the Government at the time his representation claiming rights in the Inam lands under the management of the respondent No. 2 was taken up for consideration by the Government. Learned counsel proceeded to say that by the order dated 4th April 1963 the Government rejected the petitioner's claim on merits and the suggestion contained in that order that the applicant could approach the competent Court for the settlement of his dispute did not constitute the ground for the rejection of the petitioner's claim. It was said that though under rule 11 of the Dewas State Inam Rules, 1916, all questions "regarding Inam property" were excluded from the jurisdiction of civil Courts, a civil Court could decide those questions if there was an order of the State Government to the contrary; and consequently the Government acted within its rights in directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court for an adjudication of the dispute raised by him with regard to his interest in the Inam lands in question. It was, therefore, urged that there was no ground for reviewing the order passed by the Government on 4th April 1963 and the petitioner's application for review was rightly rejected by the Revenue Minister on 7th September 1964 after hearing him.