DAVE, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that Maharaj Shri Kishore Singhji was one of the brothers of Maharaja Sahib Shri Jaswant Singhji, late Ruler of the former State of Jodhpur. He was granted a jagir which was known as Kishore Bagh. He had several sons, one of whom, namely Urjan Singh, was born of his wedded wife, while three other sons, namely Rao Raja Surat Singh, petitioner, Rao Raja Hanut Singh, non-petitioner No. 4 and Rao Raja Amar Singh, were illegitimate sons born of Pardayat. Maharaj Urjan Singh had a son named Bhim Singh and Bhim Singh had a son namely Maharaj Shri Bheron Singh, non-petitioner No. 3. Thus Maharaj Shri Bhim Singh was the Jagirdar of Jagir Kishore Bagh when it was resumed under Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Before the resumption of the said jagir, the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 4 were each receiving Rs. 90/- per month as maintenance allowance from the jagir of non-petitioner No. 3. After the resumption of the Jagir, the question of fixing maintenance for the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 4 under sec. 27 of the Act came before the Jagir Commissioner. On 30th June, 1959, the Jagir Commissioner fixed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month in favour of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 4. IT was also ordered that the maintenance holders will receive interest at the rate of two and a half per cent per annum on the amount of the maintenance allowance. IT was requested on behalf of the petitioner that the maintenance allowance should be granted to him in bonds and not in cash. To this, an objection was raised on behalf of non-petitioner No. 3 to the effect that maintenance allowance should not be granted in bonds, because the petitioner alone was entitled to maintenance allowance and it could not be claimed by his heirs in case of his demise within fifteen years. This objection was allowed by the Jagir Commissioner and the petitioner's request for giving him maintenance allowance in bonds was turned down. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. Non-petitioner No. 3 also filed an appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance at all. The Revenue Board dismissed both the appeals on 11th March, 1960. The petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness of the said orders of the Jagir Commissioner and the Board of Revenue by this writ application. Rao Raja -Hanut Singhji (Non-petitioner No. 4) is only a proforma respondent and no relief has been claimed against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold grounds before this court. It is urged in the first instance, that the Jagir Commissioner and the learned Members of the Board of Revenue had proceeded arbitrarily in refusing the petitioner's request for giving him maintenance allowance in the shape of bonds. It is contended that the case of Shri Daulat Singh son of late Shri Amar Singh was similar to that of the petitioner, that maintenance allowance was given to Shri Daulat Singh in the shape of bonds, that in several other cases also of the same nature, maintenance allowance was granted in the shape of bonds and, therefore, the petitioner should not have been discriminated. The next ground urged by learned counsel is that the Jagir Commissioner had committed an error in allowing the contention of non-petitioner No. 3 to the effect that the petitioner alone was entitled to receive maintenance allowance and that his heirs would not be entitled to receive it if he happened to die within fifteen years. In reply, it is urged by learned Government Advocate that there is no law whereby the petitioner can claim the grant of maintenance allowance in the shape of bonds and, therefore, his request is untenable. In respect of the second objection, it is urged by him as also by learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 3. that the petitioner's heir is not a party to the present writ application and the question raised by the petitioner is pre-mature. It would be proper to take up both the questions seriatim. Regarding the first objection, it may be observed that section 27 of the Act lays down the quantum of maintenance allowance and the manner in which the amount of maintenance claimed by the maintenance holders out of the resumed jagir is to be determined by the Jagir Commissioner. Section 32 (1) (c) of the Act then lays down that the Jagir Commissioner will determine the amount of annual maintenance allowance, if any, payable to persons entitled to such allowance under sec. 27 of the Act. Sub section (2) lays down how a final order should be made in this respect. Sec. 35 (2) further lays down that the amount finally determined under clause (c) of sub-sec (1) of sec. 32 shall be deducted and paid to each of the persons entitled thereto from every instalment referred to in sec. 35 sub-sec. (1) and the remaining amount of the instalment shall be payable by the Government to the Jagirdar. Sec. 35a lays down that the compensation payable under this Act shall be given in cash or in bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds, as may be prescribed. We may next refer to rule 3 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir (Compensation & Rehabilitation Bond) Rules, 1956, framed by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by sec. 48 of the Act. That rule runs as follows; - "rule 3, Compensation to be in cash or Bonds. Subject to the other provisions of these rules and the Raj. Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Rules, 1954, the compensation and rehabilitation grant including the additional rehabilitation grant finally determined as payable to a Jagirdar or a co-sharer under the Act, will be paid in cash or in negotiable bonds or partly in cash or partly in bonds, as the Jagir Commissioner, the Commissioner of the Division or the Collector of the District as the case may be, may in each case decide on the application of the Jagirdar concerned. These bonds will be called Rajasthan Jagir Resumption Compensation and Rehabilitation Bonds". It would appear from a perusal of the said rule as also the sections of the Act, referred above, that the compensation and rehabilitation grant, including the additional rehabilitation grant finally determined as payable to a Jagirdar or a co-sharer under the Act may be paid either in cash or in negotiable bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds, as the Jagir Commissioner, the Commissioner of the Division or the Collector of the district, as the case may be, may in each case decide on the application of the Jagirdar concerned. It is significant that the name of a maintenance-holder does not appear in Rule 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any particular provision either in the Act or in the Rules to the effect that his client had a right to claim maintenance allowance in negotiable bonds. It is apparent from the perusal of Rule 3 that it is left to the discretion of the jagir Commissioner, the Commissioner of the Division or the Collector of the District, as the case may be, to pay compensation even to a Jagirdar or a co-sharer either in cash or in negotiable bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds. If the bonds cannot be claimed even by a Jagirdar as of right under the said Rule, such a claim cannot be advanced by a maintenance-holder according to law. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the first argument. Now coming to the second contention, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Jagir Commissioner had refused to allow maintenance allowance to his client in bonds on account of an objection of nonpetitioner No. 3 to the effect that his heir would not be entitled to receive maintenance in the event of the petitioner's demise within fifteen years. It is contended that the Jagir Commissioner had committed an error in allowing this objection, that if this part of his order is allowed to stand, it may affect the rights of the petitioner's heir in future and, therefore, it should be set aside. It may be observed that the learned Members of the Board of Revenue have not adverted to this question at all. It is true that such an objection was raised on behalf of non-petitioner No. 3 before the Jagir Commissioner, but a perusal of the order of the Jagir Commissioner shows that he had only noted the argument but not given his decision there on. It does seem that he was influenced by this argument, but he did not apply his mind to the question whether the petitioner's heir would be entitled to receive maintenance allowance and if hot, for what reason. We do not consider it proper to embark upon this question in this writ application, because the petitioner's heir is not a party to it and question of the petitioner's heir receiving an allowance from non-petitioner No. 3 cannot arise in the life time of the petitioner. We leave this point to be determined by the proper authorities if and when that contingency arises. With these observations, the writ application is hereby dismissed. . ;