A.S.SARELA, J.M.SHELAT - (1.) On April 29 1961 Sir Vijaysinhji Chhatrasinhji the then ruler of Rajpipla State expired leaving him surviving three sons of whom the present petitioner was the second son. According to the petitioner the said Sir Vijaysinhji in accordance with the custom prevailing in the family of the rulers of Rajpipla passed an order on August 19 1946 which was to have effect from July 1 1946 whereunder he granted to the petitioner for the purpose of providing maintenance to him three villages namely Amletha Tropa and Ori yielding an annual revenue of Rs. 15 533 the revenue thereof and in addition thereto a sum of Rs. 20 467 as and by way of cash allowance payable every year. In pursuance of that order the said Sir Vijaysinhji as the ruler of the Rajpipla State issued a Sanad. The Sanad inter alia provided that the petitioner was to be the full owner of the entire revenue of the said three villages irrespective of any increase that might be caused by any fresh revision or settlement which might be introduced thereafter that the petitioner and his heirs were the sole and absolute owners with hereditary title of the aforesaid three villages and that in accordance with the said order the petitioner and his theirs after him were to get from the State Treasury every year the aforesaid sum of Rs. 20 467 The petitioner thus was granted a Jivai Jagir in the aggregate amount of Rs. 36 0 per annum made up as aforesaid of the land revenue derived from the said three villages and the said cash allowance of Rs. 20 467 with hereditary title thereto. By an agreement of merger dated March 19 1948 made between the Dominion of India and the said Sir Vijaysinhji the State of Rajpipla came to be merged with the State of Bombay on June 10 1948 By a letter dated October 1 1948 addressed by the Ministry of States to the said Sir Vijaysinhji the Dominion of India guaranteed pensions gratuities and allowances granted by the State of Rajpipla to the members of its public services prior to April 1 1948 as also the enjoyment of Khangi villages lands and jagirs etc. existing on April 1 1948
(2.) It appears from the judgment of the Revenue Tribunal that certain correspondence thereafter took place between the Government of Bombay and the said ruler. By his letter dated July 18 1949 the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay intimated to the ruler as follows :- In continuation of my demi-official letter of even number dated the 8th July 1949 regarding (your) Highness inventory of private property securities and cash balances I am to say that in the course of discussion on the 26th April 1949 at the Nizams Guest House Bombay certain commitments made by Your Highness such as alienations allowances granted to relatives pensions etc. were considered and the following decisions were arrived at. These decisions were (1) that the lands alienated in favour of the petitioner and also the third son of the ex-ruler were to be treated as their personal property subject to payment of assessment etc. and (2) that the allowance granted to his various relations including the petitioner were to continue till the life-time of the present beneficiaries. The letter added that this decision of the Government of Bombay had the approval of the Government of India in the Ministry of States. In pursuance of these decisions the Chief Secretary by his letter dated August 23 1949 informed the Collector of Broach that the Government of Bombay was pleased to direct that the allowance of Rs. 20 467 granted to the petitioner should be continued during his life-time only and that that allowance was to be paid to the petitioner from the date of integration namely June 10 1948 On December 31 1949 the Chief Secretary wrote another letter to the ruler wherein referring to the letter of August 23 1949 written to him by the ruler the Chief Secretary informed him that as regards the cash allowance of Rs. 20 467 in favour of the petitioner the Government regretted that it could not agree to make that cash allowance hereditary as in no case such allowances have been allowed beyond the life-time of the beneficiaries. The Chief Secretary also wrote I am to add that the decision taken at the conference held in the Council Hall Bombay on the 26th April 1949 in this regard is extremely liberal since ordinarily the two Rajkumars (the petitioner and his younger brother) should be supported from Your Highness privy purse and it is hoped that Your Highness will not press this point. The letter again observed that these decisions had the approval of the Government of India in the Ministry of States. This correspondence shows that as far back as April 26 1949 a decision was taken at a conference between the ex-ruler on the one hand and the Government of Bombay on the other to the effect that the cash allowance of Rs. 20 467 which the ex-ruler had granted to the petitioner hereditarily was reduced to an allowance which was to be paid to the petitioner during his life-time only. It would seem that the ex-ruler felt dissatisfied with this decision and carried on some correspondence with the Government of Bombay which included the above-quoted letter by him dated August 23 1949 In answer to that letter the Chief Secretary by his reply dated December 31 1949 regretted the inability of the Government of Bombay to accede to the request of the ex-ruler to treat the aforesaid cash allowance as a hereditary grant and reiterated in that letter the decision of the Government of Bombay dated April 26 1949 and hoped that the ruler would not press the point any further. It may be observed that inspite of the communication to the ruler of the decision arrived at as aforesaid on April 26 1949 but presumably because of the hope expressed by the Chief Secretary in his last letter the Ruler did not carry on any further correspondence with the Government of Bombay or with any other authority nor did he agitate against the aforesaid decision of the Government of Bombay. It appears that the petitioner also did not take any steps to challenge or to have that decision set aside by any authority.
(3.) In 1953 the State Legislature enacted the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagir Abolition) Act 1953 being Act XXXIX of 1954 abolishing all Jagirs. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the Collector Broach under secs. 13 and 14 of that Act for compensation for the abolition of his Jivai Jagir. In 1955 the State Legislature also enacted the Bombay Merged Territories (Miscellaneous Alienations) Abolition Act 1955 being Act XXII of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act. That Act came into force as from August 1 1955 On the coming into force of the Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act and in the footing that the aforesaid alienation was abolished there under the Government of Bombay ceased do pay the cash allowance to the petitioner. On June 8 1956 the petitioner filed an application being application No. 73 of 1955 under sec. 17 of the Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act before the Deputy Collector Broach claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 1 43 269 i. e. seven times the amount of Rs. 20 467 upon the footing that the alienation i. e. the cash allowance was a hereditary alienation and therefore the petitioner was entitled to compensation under clause (i) of sec. 15(1) of the Act. By his order dated June 4 1960 the Deputy Collector negatived the petitioners claim for Rs. 1 43 259 and awarded Rs. 61 401 only as compensation under clause (iii) of sec. 15(1) holding that as the Government of Bombay had already given its decision that the aforesaid allowance was for life only the provision applicable to the petitioners claim would be sec. 15(1)(iii) and not sec. 15(1)(i) and therefore compensation payable to the petitioner would be only three times and not seven times the annual cash allowance of Rs. 20 467 The petitioner filed an appeal against that order before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal by its order dated September 1 1961 upheld the order of the Deputy Collector and dismissed the petitioners appeal. It is the correctness of this order. the Revenue Tribunal which is challenged in this petition.;