GOURENDRA PRATAP SINGH DEO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a descendant of the family of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Dhenkanal which merged in the State of Orissa. He was getting maintenance allowance from the State Government which has been discontinued. He has alleged that the order of discontinuance is unconstitutional and has prayed for a direction for payment of the said monthly allowance as well as for payment of his Kharposh allowance. This application has been heard on the preliminary point of delay and laches.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he happens to be the great grandson of Raja Bhagirathi Mahendra Bahadur, one of the ex-Rulers of the Dhenkanal State and an uncle of the present Raja. He was in receipt of maintenance and kharposh allowances under the Darbar administration until merger on 1-1-1948. After merger with the State of Orissa, he was also being paid the aforesaid allowances. Since 1949, payment of the said allowances has been stopped. He has now claimed for payment of the aforesaid allowances. Admittedly, payment of allowances has been discontinued since 1949. The present writ petition has been filed in June, 1975. The learned Advocate-General contends that apart from any other question on merits, the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It is contended by Mr. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the question of delay should not be considered against him, inasmuch as the petitioner is an old man aged about 60 years and the right asked to be enforced being a fundamental right to property, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not attracted and, in equity, he is entitled to get the allowance. He also relies on the fact that the petitioner had made several representations asking for continuing the payment and his last representation of February 1975 (Annexure-3) has not, like its predecessors, brought any response.

(3.) On the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with his claim about twentysix years after payment was stopped. The claim is a money claim. Undisputedly, the petitioner belongs to the family of Rulers of the erstwhile State of Dhenkanal. It is not his case that he is either illiterate or ignorant. On the other hand, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a claim as now laid was made previously by a brother of the Ruler and the matter went up to Supreme Court which was finally decided in March, 1964. The said case has also been reported in AIR 1964 SC 1793 (Raj Kumar Narsing Pratap Singh Deo v. The State of Orissa). Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about the legal position. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006, a Bench of five Judges has observed (at p. 1011):