- (1.) THIS is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution, though the nature of the writ claimed is not mentioned. The petitioner, who was a considerable landholder and a man of influence before the abolition of zamin-dari, claimed that in reward for loyal services, --he had been allowed two remissions of revenue, one for Rs. 150/- and the other for Rs. 757- granted to him in 1922 and 1923 and these remissions be allowed up to 1950, when the Government stopped them. He further claimed that he was entitled to continue to enjoy these remissions and any demand by the Government for refund of either of them was illegal and infringed the petitioner's fundamental rights. He, therefore, prayed for a direction or a writ to the Government prohibiting them from "interfering in any manner in the enjoyment of the two life grants in the nature of remissions of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 75/- in the land revenue of the petitioner" and from realising a sum of Rs. 4,200/- which was the amount allowed as remission at the rate of Rs. 150/- per year for 28 years. The Government had also stopped the remission of Rs. 75/- per annum, which was valid remission, till the ar-rears amounting to Rs. 4,200/- had been realised. It was prayed that the Government be directed not to suspend this grant.
(2.) THIS application was supported by an affidavit, but the verification of this affidavit shows that saiyid Ishaq Ali, the deponent, does not state which of the facts mentioned in it were within his personal knowledge and to which facts he deposed on the basis of the information received. According to the affidavit, his age was only 50 in 1951 and there is nothing to indicate that he was in the service of the petitioner at the relevant time, viz. , 1922 to 1924. His knowledge as to what happened in those years can, therefore, not be his personal knowledge but can only be based on information.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY an affidavit was filed by one Nasiruddin, who swore that he had been the general agent of the petitioner at the relevant dates and he also swore that, to the best of his memory, two sanads were granted. The correspondence which has been filed in this case clearly negatives the issue of the two sanads. This affidavit too, therefore, cannot be relied upon to support the case of the petitioner.;