Kansingh, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner who claims succession to a Jagir in the former Alwar State whose last holder expired in 1916, questions the validity of an order of the Raj Pramukh of the former United State of Matsya dated 25 -4 -1949, by which the Raj Pramukh ordered that the Jagir has escheated to the State. He further challenges the orders disposing of his representations. The petitioner has also prayed that a direction be issued to the State Government to recognise the petitioner as successor of the Jagir of Thikana Khora in accordance with Rule 14 of the Alwar State Jagir Rules and in consequence the State be commanded to restore the properties of the aforesaid jagir as also the income thereof to the petitioner.
(2.) THE order of the Raj Pramukh which is impugned has been quoted in para No. 8 of the writ -petition and it runs as follows: His Highness the Raj Pramukh has been pleased to order that Khora Thikana (Alwar Unit) may escheated to Matsya, with immediate effect. By Order ofHis Highness the Raj PramukhSd./ - R.N. Saxena,Secretary to Administrator I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at sufficient length. He contends (hat this order of the Raj Pramukh of the former Matsya Union was bad, because according to Rule 29(d) of the Alwar State Jagir Rules, hereinafter to be referred as the "Rules" the Government alone could have passed such an order. It is further contended that this order of the Raj Pramukh was also bad for the reason that according to Rule 29(d) the enquiry contemplated by the Hakim had not been completed and nor were the papers submitted to the Government. The learned Counsel maintain; that the Raj Pramukh could not have passed any orders without the conclusion of the enquiry, more so for the reason that the Maharaja of Alwar whose opinion was invited by the Raj Pramukh had opined that there was no justification for resuming the Jagir and that is why according to the minute recorded by the Maharaja of Alwar the matter remained pending for a long period. It was next urged by learned Counsel that the petitioner had made representations to the Raj Pramukh, but he did not know how they were disposed of. The petitioner submits that since, 1955 fresh representations had been submitted to the Government of Rajasthan and some letters were issued by the Government to the petitioner in that connection saying that the matter was receiving consideration, but that all proved to be of no help and consequently the petitioner has to file the present writ -petition.
(3.) AT the very outset learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain; (1) how an order of the Raipramukh of the erstwhile Matsya Union passed before the coming into force of the Constitution or the integration of the Matsya Union with the United State of Rajasthan could by challenged by the petitioner when that order was for escheating the Khora jagir, and (2) how the writ petition filed after a delay of almost 20 years since the order of the Rajpramukh was passed could be entertained? Reg., 1 : Learned Counsel submitted that the order having been passed by the Rajpramukh and not by the Government of the day could be questioned as the same was not in accordance with Rule 29 of the Rules. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Th. Bahadur Singh v. H.H. The Rajpramukh of Rajasthan, ILR Raj. 670 in support of his contention. We have carefully gene through this case. In that case one Thakur Sheodan Singh who was a Jagirdar of 6 annas share in the Jagir of Dhigwara was succeeded by his son Gopal Singh. Thakur Gopal singh having no male issue made an 'application to the Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Alwar on 24.2, 1955 for permission to adopt one Basant Singh according to Rule 9 of the Rules. The permission for such an adoption was given by the Executive Council of the Alwar State on 2.5.1946. In the meantime Gopal Singh expired on 7.7.1946. Basant singh who claimed to be the successor of Gopalsingh on the basis of adoption applied for recognition of his succession to Gopalsingh before the Hakim, (Jagir). Against this application Basantsingh he filed his objections and claimed that he was the nearest of kin and should be recognised as the successor of Thakur Gopalsigh. The Hakim, Jagir, gave the opinion that Basant Singh was entitled to succeed, but on an appeal the Home Minister remanded the case for further enquiry and report as to whether any adoption ceremony in respect of Basant singh had taken place. This report was submitted by the Hakim, Jagir on 13.9.1947 and it was to the effect that no ceremony of adoption had taken place beyond the sanction of the administration. The Judicial Secretary, who dealt with the matter, recorded his opinion to the effect that the mere sanction to adopt did not amount to an adoption without any ceremony of adoption. Accordingly, he recommended that succession be recognised in favour of the claimant other than Basant Singh who may be found to be entitled to succeed according to law. Basant Singh filed an appeal against this order of the Judicial Secretary and the Council of Ministers of Matsya Union, which had come into existence by that time, rejected the appeal. Basant Singh then filed a review application which remained undecided till merger of the Matsya union into Rajasthan. This review petition was decided by the Rajpramukh of the United State of Rajasthan under Article 7 of the Covenant and on 16.9.1952 .The Revenue Secretary conveyed the order of the Rajpramukh to the effect that succession in favour of Thakur Basant Singh be recognised in view of his adoption having been sanctioned by the administration. It was this order of the Rajpramukh passed on 16.9.1952 that came to be challenged in Th.Bahadur Singh's case, ILR Raj. 670. This case is, in my view, distinguishable from the present case. In the present case the impugned order was passed by the Rajpramukh of Matsya prior to the coming into force of the Constitution as well as the integration of the Matsya Union with the United State of Rajasthan.5 powers of the Raj Pramukh as they were prior to the coming into force of the Constitution arising from the covenant were not the same as the powers of the Rajpramukh flowing from the Constitution.;