CHANDRESHWARI PRASAD NARAIN DEO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioners Sri Chandre-shwari Prasad Narain Deo and seven others have moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Subdivisional Officer of Giridih dated 18/2/1954, acting under Section 4(h), Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) and cancelling five khorposh grants made by respondent 2, Maharaj Maheshwari Prasad Narain Deo, in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of a compromise decree dated 3/4/1948.

(2.) The petitioners are members of Dhanwar Raj family in the district of Hazaribagh, Petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons of Raja Iswari Prasad Narain Deo, and petitioners 5 to 8 are the sons of Kumar Harihar Prasad Narain Deo. Petitioner 4 is the widow of Raja Iswari Prasad Narain Deo. In the year 1917 Harihar Prasad Narain Deo along with his sons brought a suit for partition against Iswari Prasad Narain Deo claiming that he was entitled to half share in Dhanwar Estate. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the estate was impartible and governed by the rule of lineal promogeniture and the junior members of the family were entitled only to maintenance and had no title to a share in the esiate. Against the decision of the Subordinate Judge the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court in First Appeal No. 181 of 1925. The appeal was decided by the High Court on 9-7-1928 and it was held by the High Court that the Dhanwar Raj Estate was impartible but the plaintiffs were entitled to a share of the self-acquired properties of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo. The case was, therefore, remanded by the High Court to the learned Subordinate Judge for a finding as to what were the immoveable properties acquired in the name of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo and whether there was incorporation of these properties with the properties comprised in the impartible estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held on enquiry that a number of villages and other immoveable properties were the self-acquired properties of Ran Baha-dur Narain Deo and were not incorporated in the impartible estate. After receipt of the report, the High Court made a direction on 26-9-1931 that these properties should be partitioned. The plaintiffs took an appeal to the Judicial Committee from the judgment of the High Court, namely Privy Council Appeal No. 87 of 1934. The appeal was heard and allowed by the Judicial Committee in part and it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a partition of certain other proper-ties, namely, Telonari and Falangi. The Judicial Committee further ordered that there should be an investigation as to whether some other villages to be specified by the plain-tiffs from lists A and B of the plaint were self-acquired properties of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo and were liable to be partitioned. After the case came back on remand, the parties entered into a compromise. It was agreed that the plaintiffs should give up their claims to the partition of villages other than Telonari and Paiangi and they should also give up all claims to immoveable and moveable properties which would be held partible in the final decree, In lieu thereof Maharaj Mahestiwari Prasad Narain Deo agreed to give Rs. 125/- per month and a Bhandar called Balwagarh as maintenance allowance during the period the estate was managed by the Encumbered Estates Department and on release the Raja Saheb agreed to grant properties yielding an income of Rs. 5,000/- a year and also a Bhandar appertaining thereto. In pursuance of this compromise a petition was filed by the plaintiffs on 16-4-1937 in Court stating that excepting the villages which were uptill then held to be partible, there was no other property liable to be partitioned as self-acquisition of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo. The plaintiffs also accepted the report of the Pleader Commissioner as regards the quantum of the debt as correct. Maharaja Maheshwari Prasad Narain Deo also gave to the petitioners a letter dated 23-4-1937 under his seal and signature embodying the terms of the agreement. The Dhanwar Raj Estate was released from the management of the Court of Wards in the year 1943, and soon after respondent 2 stopped the grant of allowance of Rs. 125/- as maintenance to petitioners 5 to 8. Thereafter all the sons of Harihar Prasad including petitioners 5 to 8 filed a suit for maintenance in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh. An application was filed for permission to prosecute the suit in forma pauperise The application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. But petitioners 5 to 8 preferred a civil revision in the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge. The civil revision application was admitted on 22-4-1948. Meanwhile the parties entered into a compromise and in title suit No. 9 of 1918 the parties filed a compromise petition on 22-3-1948. By the terms of this compromise, respondent 2, Maharaja Maheshwari Prasad Narain Deo, agreed to make khorposh ' grants in favour of the petitioners in lieu of cash maintenance. The petitioners on their part gave up their claim to-the self-acquisition of the late Raja Ran Bahadur Narain Deo. They also gave up their claim in respect of past maintenance. The petitioner further declared that they would not demand "Karta's account to any share in the cash balance of Rs. 36,241 and odd as per the preliminary decree". The petitioners further accepted that the amount of debt found by the pleader commissioner Mr. Nurul Hussain was correct & that it would be a charge not on the impartible estate but on self-acquired properties of Raja Ran Bahadur Narain Deo. The compromise petition was recorded in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and a decree was passed in terms thereof. Thereafter, respondent 2 executed five khorposh grants in pursuance of the terms of compromise. These are: (1) registered deed dated 30-7-1949 in favour of Sidheshwari Prasad Narain Deo in respect of properties mentioned in Schedule B (2) of the compromise petition; (2) 'registered deed D/- 30-7-49 in favour of Someshwari Prasad Narain Deo in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule B(1) of the said compromise petitions; (3) registered deed dated 29-10-1949 in favour of Jogeshwari Prasad Narain Deo, Banarsi Prasad Narain Deo, Rishikeshwari Prasad Narain Deo, Rameshwari Prasad Narain Deo and Bale-shwari Prasad Narain Deo in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule A of the said compromise petition; (4) registered deed dated 23-12-1949 in favour of Chandreshwari Prasad Narain Deo in respect of certain properties and (5) registered deed dated 23-12-1949 in favour of Raj Mata Radhika Kumari with regard to certain properties. By virtue of these khorposh grants the petitioners obtained peaceful possession of the respective properties as mentioned in Schedule B of the application.

(3.) A notification was subsequently made under Section 3, Bihar Land Reforms Act, and as a result of the notification the properties comprised in the Dhanwar Estate vested in the State of Bihar. Subsequently, a proceeding was started by the Sub-divisional officer of Giridih under Section 4(h), Bihar Land Reforms Act. In the course of the proceeding the petitioners produced the khorposh deeds and the compromise petition in pursuance of which the Khorposh grants were made and also the order of the Subordinate Judge thereon. The Sub-divisional Officer held, after hearing the parties, that respondent 2 had made the Khorposh grants with the object of defeating the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and also for obtaining higher compensation. On the basis of this finding the Sub-divisional officer annulled the khorposh grants after obtaining previous sanction of the Government. On 5-10-1954 the Sub-divisional officer also issued notice to the petitioners asking them to give up possession of the villages covered by the respective khorposh grants.