RAJA HARMAHENDRA SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel moves that this Court should declare Section 5(2)(d) of the Puniab Court of Wards Act (II of 1903), hereinafter referred to as the Act, void and 'ultra vires' of the Constitution of India and the continuance of the Superintendence of the estate of, the petitioner Raja Harmahendra Singh of Dada Siba by the Court of Wards as malicious, illegal and without jurisdiction. He also prays for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' or any other appropriate writ of cancelling the notification issued on 31st August 1949, as a result of which the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the estate of the petitioner and for a mandamus directing the restoration to the petitioner of the estate. Rule was issued on 9th November 1951 by my Lord the Chief Justice.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the estate of Dada Siba in the district of Kangra, In 1933 the estate was taken over by the Court of Wards during the minority of the petitioner and was managed and administered by them. In 1945 the petitioner attained majority and the estate was released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards. The petition alleges that after the estate was restored to the petitioner he effected substantial improvements, that in April 1945 he was "roped in and persuaded" by the late . Maharaja of Kapurthala to gd into a marriage ceremony with Usha his granddaughter", that the lady whom the petitioner was to marry was unwilling to marry him and the marriage was forced on her, that in 1946 the wife Usha "set up the birth of a son and in 1947 she began to carry on intrigues with the help of the district officials of Kangra to foist the aforesaid child on the petitioner and his estate," that it was as a result of these intrigues that the Deputy Commissioner recommended to Government to take over superintendence of the estate but this was not agreed to by Government, that in January 1949 the petitioner was implicated in a murder case although there was no evidence against him, that the petitioner was discharged on 6th December 1949, that during the time that the case was going on against him and he was in custody certain reports were made to the Government with regard to illegal felling of trees from the petitioner's forests, that the petitioner was asked by the district officials to apply for his estate being brought under the Court of Wards but he refused to do so, and that on 31 August 1949, the Court of Wards illegally assumed superintendence of the entire estate of the petitioner. The petitioner goes on to allege that this action was malicious which is apparent from the letters of the Tahsildar of Dehra dated 7th July 1950 and 19th July 1950. The Tahsildar called upon him to state whether he was prepared to make a compromise with his wife Usha Devi and also whether he was agreeable to pay her suitable allowance and not to banish Tikka Barjindar Singh, son of Usha Devi. It is further alleged in the petition that the assumption of superintendence by, the Court of Wards under Section 5(2) (d) of the Act was illegal as the section' had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the clause is repugnant to the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and is void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India. He goes on to make other allegations which are not relevant to this case.

(3.) The allegations of 'mala fides' are denied by the opposite party. They state that the Deputy Commissioner recommended the assumption of the estate of the petitioner under the superintendence of the Court of Wards as he was unable to manage his estate and was likely to dissipate his property and had entered upon a course of wasteful extravagance, that the petitioner was accused of abetment of murder and during his detention in Jail people were felling timber on his land and removing the same. The respondents deny that any pressure was brought on the petitioner but give as the reasons for taking over the estate that he purchased property in the name of his second wife Suraj Devi who is described as "his cousin sister", that he was neglecting his property and making undue exactions from his tenants, that he was not paying allowances to his dependents and had even refused to perform the last rites of his real mother. As I have said allegations of malice, illegality, want of jurisdiction, of justification and of 'bona fides' on the part of the executive are denied by the respondents.