USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Each of the petitioners of these three writ applications has prayed that an order passed by the Commissioner of Patna Division dated the 31st August, 1970, dealing with three separate ap-peals, may to quashed. In each writ application a copy of the Commissioner's order has been given as Annexure 3 and a common argument has been advanced on behalf of all the writ petitioners by Shri L.C. Sinha. Therefore, this judgment and order will govern all the three writ applications.

(2.) Respondent No. 5 In each of these cases (to be described as respondent No. 5 henceforth) bad succeeded to the Gaddi of Dumraon Raj in November, 1949, on the death of his father, Maharaja Bahadur Ramran Bijoy Prasad Singh. The petitioner of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1774 is the son of respondent No. 5 The petitioner of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1766 is the Wife of the said respondent No. 5 and the petitioner of civil writ jurisdiction case No. 1767 is his daughter. It is said that the succession to the Dumraon Raj used to be govern-ed by the rule of primogeniture and from ancient times a practice and custom had grown up to provide maintenance to the junior members and dependents of the Mahnraja, whether male or female. In pursuance of this custom and tradition of the family, respondent No. 5 had made three maintenance grants in favour of the three wit petitioners by way of Khorposh deeds dated the 13th May, 1950. (Ry affidavits filed on the 2nd September, 1972 three copies of these three khorposh deeds have been filed in these cases.) It is said that after Dumraon Raj had vested in the State of Bihar, a notice under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act had been served on each of the writ petitioners on the 13th January, 1953, but the proceedings were ultimately dropped. Thereafter, fresh notices under the same pro-vision of law were served on the three petitioners on the 12th September, 1963. As a result, three cases were brought on the record as follows:-- As against the son of respondent No. 5 the case was numbered as Case No. 3 of 1963-64 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar. As against the wife of respondent No. 5 the case was numbered as Care No. 1 of 1963-64 before the same officer and as against the daughter of respondent No. 5 the case was numbered as Case No. 2 of 1963-64 before the same officer. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Buxar, exercising the powers of a Collector under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, recommended annulment of all the three khorposh grants. Three appeals were filed by the three writ petitioners before the Collector of Shahabad as follows: As against Case No. 1 of 1963-64 the appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 33 of 1965-66; as against Case No. 2 of 1963-64 the appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 35 of 1965-66, and as against Csse No. 3 of 1963-64 the appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 36 of 1965-66. In appeal Nos. 36 and 33 of 1965-66 the Collector had asked for a REPORT from the Additional Collector by order dated the 8th July, 1966. By order dated the 29th July, 1968, the Additional Collector of Shahabad had recommended to the Collector that the grants involved in Cases Nos. 3 and 1 be annulled. A copy of this order has been given as Annexure 1 in C. W. J. Cs. 1774 and 1766 of 1970. Ry order dated the 7th October, 1968, the Collector accepted this report and forwarded it to the State Government recommending annulment of the khorposh grants in favour of the petitioners in C. W. J. Cs. 1766 of 1970 and 1774 of 1970, i.e., the wife and the son of respondent No. 5. So far as the khorposh grant in favour of the daughter was concerned the Collector of Shahabad dismissed her Appeal No. 35 of 1965-66 by order dated the 8th October, 1968, holding that for the reasons given by him on the previous day in Appeals Nos. 33 and 36 of 1965-66, there was no merit in the daughter's appeal. In such circumstances, three appeals were filed by the three writ petitioners be-fore the Commissioner, Patna Division, which were disposed of on the 31st August, 1970. The Commissioner has held that all the three khorposh grants ought to be annuled by the State Government.

(3.) The reasons given by the Commissioner of the division for recommending annulment of the khorposh grants may now be Stated.