SHIV KALYAN SINGH Vs. BHUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected applications challenging the validity of the Jaipur Hitkarni Committee Rules.

(2.) These Rules, which appeared in the Jaipur Government Gazette, dated 15-81945 provided for the appointment of what are called Hitkarni Committees for each district of the former State of Jaipur. This committee was given the power of fixing maintenance allowance of dependents of state grantees. It appears that before these rules came into force maintenance allowance of dependants of state grantees was fixed in case of dispute through a suit. These suits used to be filed in the Civil Courts. But a notification was published in the Jaipur Gazette of 15-61945, which provided that all suits against a state grantee by any chhutbhiya, maji, thakurani etc. for the grant of maintenance allowance or khangi payable from the income of a state grant shall be exclusively triable by revenue courts, and all pending suits of this nature shall be transferred by the civil courts to the revenue Courts.

(3.) The facts alleged by Bhopalsingh applicant are that in 1945 the allowance of Maji Mertaniji, opposite party, was fixed at Rs. 78/-per month. This allowance continued to be paid to her. In August, 1950, she applied to the Hitkarni Committee for increase of the allowance, and the Committee recommended that she should be paid Rs. 250/- per month. That recommendation was considered by the Revenue Minister as provided by the Rules, and on 4-8-1951, the Revenue Minister increased the allowance to Rs. 200/- per month. Then, on 16-8-1951, by another order the Revenue Minister raised the allowance to Rs. 250/- per month as recommended by the Hitkarni Committee. Bhopal Singh says that he submitted to that order and paid at the rate of Rs. 250/- p. m. up to June, 1951, as he was apprehensive of being exposed to dishonour. Later, however, in November, 1952, Maji Mertaniji again submitted an application before the Hitkarni Committee that the maintenance for the preceding 12 years be recovered at the rate of Rs. 2507-per month. The applicant objected to this and raised the plea that the Hitkarni Committee Rules were ultra vires. The applicant also opposed further realisation of maintenance allowance at Rs. 250/per month from him; but the Collector ordered Zabti in January, 1953. The applicant submits that he is always ready to pay at the rate of Rs. 78/-per month, but as that was not acceptable he had filed this application.