Bapna, J - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE case for the petitioner is that on the death of one Bhoor Singh of Dhanta he made an application that he should be recognised as the successor of the deceased. On Madho Singh minor through his guardian made an application on the 4th of June, 1953, claiming to be the heir of the deceased. THEre was some dispute about the correctness of the pedigree, but the Additional Collector, by judgment of 22nd September, 1955, upheld the claim of Madho Singh. On appeal the Revenue Board was of opinion that further enquiry should be made as to who was the senior most person in the line of Dhonkal Singh, to which line Madho Singh belonged. THE petitioner Ladhu Singh has filed this petition and it is urged on his behalf that the claim on behalf of Madho Singh was made more than one year after the death of Bhoor Singh, which took place on the 7th of August, 1950, and therefore, the application which was presented by the petitioners on the 28th of August, 1950, should have been allowed by the Board. Reliance was placed on Rule 12 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. Rule 12 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules is as under - "a claim for succession to a State grant, which is not submitted within one year of the last holder's death, shall be rejected as timebarred and the grant resumed. " As against this provision, there is another provision in Rule 23. (1), clause (b), which says that where no application for matmi has been made, the revenue officer shall publish a proclamation calling upon all persons claiming succession to present their claims in the prescribed form within one month of the publication of the proclamatiun. Another provision is to be found in Rule 10 which says that if within six months of the death of the last holder no claimant has come, forward and in certain other cases with which we are not concerned at present, the Deputy Commissioner may, in his discretion, order the temporary resumption of the whole or a part of the grant, for a period not exceeding one year at a time. If Rule 12 would be considered to be directly applicable, the petitioner has no locus standi because the grant is to be resumed. That ground alone would be sufficient to disentitle the petitioner to come to this Court. It is, however, urged that if Madho Singh's claim is to be rejected, then the petitionary claim should be entertained. That is not what Rule 12 says. Taking into consideration Rule 23 (1), clause (b), a proper interpretation would be that if nobody files any claim for succession within one year, and if nobody turns up even on the proclamation, and the enquiring officer is unable to find as to who is the rightful claimant, then the grant will be resumed. In any case, the fact that one of the claimants had put in his claim within one year, the consequences referred to in Rule 12 would not appear to follow. There is no force in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. .;