Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Thakur Anand Singh, Jagirdar of Thikana Sukhmanhedi, Tehsil Munda-war in the District of Alwar, against the Government of Rajasthan, the Commissioner of Jaipur Division and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Jagir), Alwar.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that as a Jagirdar of village Sukhmanhedi in the erstwhile Alwar State he was under an obligation to maintain nine horses and nine sawars to render service to the Alwar State. He used to maintain the required number of horses and sawars up till the year 1944. In the said year the expenses of maintaining horses and sawars shot up very high and it was found that the horses were only nominally kept up by the State and no substantial service was taken by them. THE petitioner along with most of the Jagirdars in Alwar approached the Ruler of the State and requested him to fix up cash payment in lieu of horses and sawars required to be maintained by each of them. It was mutually agreed that the Jagirdars would pay Rs. 165/- per annum in lieu of per horse and per sawar and according to the said agree -ment an order was made by His Highness on the 24th of November, 1945. THE petitioner, who had agreed to the above cash payment, made the said payment up to the 15th of May 1949. Some time prior to the said date, however, the Alwar State was integrated into the newly formed Matsya Union and the Government of the said Union by its order dated the 14th May 1949 required such Jagirdars, including the petitioner, who were paying Rs. 165/- per annum in lieu of per horse and per sawar to pay Rs. 250/- per horse and per sawar annually. THE applicant was not consulted before the said increment in cash payment and the said order was never put nor were the Jagirdars officially intimated. But when the petitioner went to deposit the cash amount at the rate fixed by mutual agreement, the tender was refused and he was asked to pay Rs. 250/- per horse and per sawar instead. THE petitioner having refused to deposit the increased amount the Commissioner, Jaipur Division, ordered the recovery of cash at the rate of Rs. 250/- per horse and per sawar as arrears of land revenue, and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Jagir), Alwar, is taking action to execute the order of the Commissioner. The petitioner contends that the Matsya Government had no power to increase the amount of cash payment from the mutually agreed sum of Rs. 165/- per annum per horse and per sawar to Rs. 250/- and that the action of the opposite party in trying to realise the increased amount was illegal. The petitioner therefore prays that the opposite party No. 2 and 3 i.e., the Commissioner, Jaipur Division, and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Jagir), Alwar, be restrained by a writ of prohibition from executing the order dated the 14th May 1949 about the increased amount and that the said order be declared void and be quashed. He also prays that the opposite party No. 3 be prevented from demanding more than the penalty imposed by law relating to Jagirs from the Jagirdars, including the petitioner, and be further ordered by a writ of mandamus to deposit the sum which the petitioner is paying in lieu of service under the law. In their reply the opposite party admit that the petitioner is a Jagirdar of village Sukhmanhedi, that he was under an obligation to maintain nine horses and nine sawars to render service to Alwar State, that in 1944 the cash allowance of Rs. 165/- per annum per horse and per sawar was fixed by the order dated the 24th November 1945 of the Alwar Darbar, and that the Matsya Government increased the amount to Rs. 250/- per annum per horse and per sawar by the order dated the 14th May, 1949. They also admit that the petitioner has paid the cash amount at the Rate of Rs. 165/-per annum up to the 15th May, 1949. They, however, aver that the Matsya Government was authorised to increase the amount to Rs. 250/- without any consent of the petitioner or for the matter of that of other Jagirdars and without any previous intimation to them. They also aver that the petitioner was bound to maintain the required number of horses and sawars, and that he could not compel the Government to realise only the sum of Rs. 165/- per annum per horse and per sawar. The Government was authorised to resume the Jagir if the petitioner defaulted in maintaining the required number of horses and sawars or paying the cash amount at the rate of Rs. 250/- as fixed by the Government. They further said that the Commissioner, Jaipur Division, was perfectly entitled to order the realisation of the amount as arrears of land revenue and the Sub-Divisional Officer was perfectly entitled to carry out the orders of the Commissioner. They contend that the petitioner is not entitled to any writ or direction as prayed. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that under the Alwar State Jagir Rules, Rule 12, unless specially exempted wholly or partially from doing so by His Highness' Government, a Chakri Jagirdar was bound to maintain and present periodically for inspection on dates duly notified by the Hakim Jagir such number of horses and sawars as were required by the terms of his Jagir Sanad. Under Rule 15 if a horse died or a horse or sawar was rejected at inspection, a suitable horse or sawar to replace it or him was to be produced before the Hakim Jagir for approval within two months from the date of death or rejection. Under Rule 16(1) if a suitable horse or sawar to replace a dead or rejected one was not produced within the prescribed period, the defaulter was, at the discretion of the Hakim Jagir, liable to pay for every day of default a line not exceeding -/12/- for every horse with sawar, 8 annas for every horse and 4 annas for every sawar. Under sub-rule (c) of Rule 16, in case of absence from inspection, the defaulter was liable to pay a penalty not exceeding Rs. 20/-for every horse with sawar Rs. 15/-for every horse and Rs. 10/- for every sawar. By proviso to sub-rule (c), in no case, where a daily fine was permissible, the total amount of fine for continuous default, was to exceed the maximum amount leviable for six months. It was, therefore, contended that the maximum penalty which could be realised for one horse and one sawar was, under the rules, Rs. 135/-only. The Government ha 1 no power to realise more than the said amount. However, as it was mutually agreed that the petitioner and the other Jagirdars who wanted to pay a cash amount instead of the horses and the sawars would pay Rs. 165/- per annum per horse and per sawar, the petitioner was always ready to pay the amount at the said rate and in fact right up to the 15th May, 1919 he paid at the said rate. He was still willing to pay at the said rate and he could not be forced to pay anything over and above it. The Government or for the matter of that the Commissioner, Jaipur Division, and the Sub-Divisional Officer ( Jagir ), Alwar, were not authorised to demand the money at the increased rate but they were threatening the petitioner's person and property if he did not pay at the said rate. The learned Government Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the opposite party argued that the petitioner was bound to maintain the required number of horses and sawars and that if he did not do so his Jagir was liable to be resumed under Rule 17 of the Alwar State Jagir Rules. The rate of Rs. 165/- per annum per horse per sawar was fixed by the Alwar Darbar irrespective of any consent of the petitioner, as the Darbar had perfect right to fix whatever cash amount he liked if the petitioner was not willing to maintain the required number of horses and sawars. The authority which vested in the Alwar Darbar prior to the merger of Alwar State into Matsya Union by the Matsya Union covenant. His Highness the Raj Pramukh of Matsya by his order dated the 14th May, 1949 fixed the rate at Rs. 250/- per annum per horse and per sawar as it was found that the rate of Rs, 195/- per annum per horse and per sawar was grossly inadequate in the present circumstances. The petitioner was, therefore, bound to pay cash amount at the rate of Rs. 250/-. If he did not want to maintain the required number of horses and sawars. As the petitioner did not want to pay the said amount, the Commissioner was perfectly entitled under Sec. 87(f) of the Alwar Land Revenue Code to recover the amount at the said rate. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsels. There can be no doubt that the petitioner was initially bound to maintain nine horses and sawars The petitioner and some of the Jagirdars of Alwar State however approached His Highness the Maharaja of Alwar in 1944 with a request that they were willing to pay a reasonable cash allowance per horse and per sawar and His Highness the Maharaja was pleased to order on the 24th November, 1945 that the petitioner and the other Jagirdars would pay Rs. 160/- per annum per horse. The order has been quoted by the opposite party themselves in para 3 of their reply. It is as follows : - "A number of Jagirdars have applied that they may be permitted to make fixed cash payments instead of supplying horses for service. As this arrangement may afford them facilities, we have pleasure in acceding to their requests. The Jagirdar offering to do so shall pay either Rs. 160/- per horse per annum in two instalments of Rs. 80/- each half-yearly or 60% of his Jagir income in similar instalments. We authorise the Prime Minister to dispose of applications received in this behalf. 50% will be the minimum in cases deserving special consideration. But our sanction shall be obtained in such cases." It is not clear how an amount of Rs. 5/- per horse was added to the sum of Rs. 160/- but as the petitioner has himself said in his application that a sum of Rs. 5/- per horse per annum was added for the education of Rajput children I take it that the total sum fixed was Rs. 165/-. The petitioner had been paying at the above rate up to the 15th May, 1949. On the 14th May, 1949 however the Matsya Government obtained an order from its Raj Pramukh that the amount be increased to Rs. 250/- per annum per horse and per sawar. I do not find any authority for such an increase under the Alwar State Jagir Rules. In fact the said rules do not at all lay down that any cash amount might be fixed in lieu of the horses and sawars required to be maintained by the Jagirdar. If he makes a default he would be liable to certain penalty under Rule 16(a). This penalty is to be at the rate of -/12/- every horse with sawar i.e. -/8/- for every horse and -/4/- per sawar per day in case a suitable horse or sawar is not replaced for a horse or a sawar cither dead or rejected within the prescribed period. The defaulter is liable to pay Rs. 20/- for every horse with sawar and Rs. 15/- for every horse and Rs. 10/- for every sawar in case of absence from inspection. The maximum penalty where daily fine is permissible for continuous default is not to exceed the maximum amount leviable for six months. As the rate of daily fine, permissible under rule 16(a) for not producing within the prescribed period a suitable horse or sawar in case of death or rejection, has been fixed at the rate of -/12/- for every horse with sawar, the maximum penalty which can be imposed could not exceed Rs. 135/-. Thus under the rules irrespective of any agreement, the Durbar was not be entitled to realise more than Rs. 135/- for a horse with a sawar from a defaulting Jagirdar. The petitioner, however, in common with certain other Jagirdars had the amount of Rs. 165/- per annum fixed for every horse. The petitioner was therefore bound to pay at the said rate. This he had been doing up to the 15th May 1949. He has been ready to pay at the said rate even after that. But the Government refused to accept at the said rate. The Government have no authority under the rules to fix whatever cash amount they liked for every horse and sawar. The order increasing the amount to Rs. 250/- was, therefore, without any legal sanction and the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay at the said rate. It was argued by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner was bound to maintain the required number of horses and sawars. This may be so, but that would not confer any power on the Government or the Raj Pramukh to substitute whatever cash payment they liked for every horse and sawar. If in spite of the cash amount of Rs. 165/- fixed at the request of the petitioner and the other Jagirdars, the Government can still compel the petitioner to revert to the old position i.e., of keeping the required number of horses and sawars, they might very well do so. But they cannot insist upon the petitioner paying a cash amount which he is not willing to pay or which he is not under the rules obliged to pay. It is now to be seen as to what relief is to be given to the petitioner. The petitioner's person and property are being threatened for non-payment of the increased amount. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that in trying to enforce payment at the increased rate the opposite party were violating the petitioner's fundamental rights. It is not necessary in this case to find whether the action of the opposite party amounts to the violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a High Court is not confined to issue directions, orders or writs in the case of violation of fundamental rights only. Such directions, orders or writs can be - issued also for any other purpose. I am supported in this view of mine not only by the clear and unambiguous language of Article 226 but also by a Full Bench ruling of Bombay High Court reported in A.I.R. 1950 Bom. 363 (Jesinghbhai Iswarlal vs. Emperor). It was held in that case that the words "any other purpose" were embodied in Article 226 in order to remove any doubt that the High Court's jurisdiction to issue the writs was confined merely to the enforcement of fundamental rights, because the High Court could issue a writ otherwise than for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and that power of the High Court is saved and safeguarded by providing in Article 226 that the writs can be issued not only for the purposes of enforcement of fundamental rights but also for any other purpose. It was also held in that case that the High Court under Article 226 was not only empowered to issue writs of the description specified therein but also directions and orders. In the present case it has been found that the order of the Raj Pramukh of Matsya Union increasing the amount to Rs. 250/- per horse and per sawar was not legal. Under these, circumstances, a direction can be issued to the opposite party not to enforce payment of any sum over and above the sum which he has been paying in pursuance of the order of His Highness the Maharaja of Alwar. I would, therefore, allow the application and direct the opposite party not to enforce payment of any sum exceeding that which the petitioner has been paying in pursuance of the order of His Highness the Maharaja of Alwar. ;