http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/1968

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  164            1968 SCR  (3) 734

ACT: Bihar Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950-Notification under s. 3 of Act vesting all estates in State-Permanent malikana  payable to Zemindar whether a proprietary or intermediary  interest- Whether subject to vesting provision.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent  was the proprietor of  certain  estates  in Bihar.   He  was  also in receipt of  a  permanent  malikana allowance  from  the Government. After the  passing  of  the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 followed by a notification under s.  3  thereof the estates of the respondent vested  in  the State of Bihar.  In 1958 the State of Bihar stopped  payment of  the  malikana  allowance on the ground  that  it  was  a proprietary  interest  which had vested in the  State.   The respondent thereupon filed a petition under Art. 226 ,of the Constitution.   The  High Court held that  the  respondent’s right  to the malikana was not an intermediary interest  and did not cease with the extinction of his proprietary  rights in  the estate.  The State of Bihar appealed to this  Court. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant were : (i) that  the right to malikana was an interest in  the  estates belonging  to  the  respondent which on  the  issue  of  the notification  under  s.  3  became  extinguished  and   (ii) alternatively,   the  respondent  was  an  intermediary   of temporary  settled estates in respect of which malikana  was payable   and  on  the  transference  of  his   intermediary interests in those estates, his right to the malikana  stood extinguished and he became entitled only to the compensation payable under s. 24A. HELD : (i) The history of the malikana allowance showed that it   was  a  permanent  grant  of  money  in  lieu  of   the proprietor’s  rights in lands originally held by  him.   The proprietors  retained  certain estates and it was  only  the interest  in these estates that was lost on the  publication of the notification under s. 3. The malikana payable to  the respondent  in the present case was not an interest in  such estates and did not cease on the issue of the  notification. [740 B] (ii) The  respondent was not a proprietor, tenure-holder  or an intermediary of the estates in respect of which  malikana was  paid  to  him.  The malikana was  not  rent  or  income

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

derived  from  those  estates.   Nor  was  the  malikana  an incumbrance on them.  The respondent’s right to the malikana was  not an intermediary interest in the estates  for  which compensation  was  payable  under  s. 24A  and  it  did  not therefore vest in the Government. [740 H] Herranund  Shoo v. Mst.Ozeerun & Ors., 9 W.R.  102,  Gobinda Chunder Roy Choudhuri v. Ram Chunder Chowdhury, 19 W.R.  95, Hurmuzi Begum v. Hirday Narayan, 5 Cal. 921 and Jaggo Bai v. Utsava Lal, 51 AN. 439, distinguished. Bhoalee Singh v. Mst.  Neemoo Behoo, 12 W.R. 498, Syed  Shah Najamuddin  Hyder  v.  Syed Zahid  Hossein,  8  C.L.J.  300, Maharaja P. S. Bahadur v. State of Bihar, 18 Pat. 1018,  Deo Kuar  v.  Man  Kuar, 21 I.A. 148 and  Mahendra  Narayan  Roy Chowdhuri v. Abdul Gafur Choudhry, 35 C.W.N. 1233.  referred to. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kunwar Sri Trivikram Narain Singh, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 213, relied on.                             7 35

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 7, 1960 of the  Patna  High Court in Misc.  Judicial Case  No.  693  of 1958. C.   K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg, S.   C.  Agarawala, K. M. K. Nair and S. P. Singh,  for  the appellants.   Sarjoo  Prasad  and  D.  Goburdhun,  for   the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J.-This appeal is directed against an order allow- ing  a  writ petition under Art. 226  of  the  Constitution. Maharaja  Pratap  Singh Bahadur was the  proprietor  of  the estates collectively known as the Gidhaur estate, in Monghyr district.   On the publication of a notification under s.  3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of  1950) on July 24, 1953 the Gidhaur estate and the interests of the Maharaja therein vested in the State of Bihar.  The Maharaja was   receiving  a  permanent  malikana  allowance  of   Rs. 5743/14/6  annually in two equal six monthly instalments  as shown  in  annexure  "A"  to  the  writ  application.    The registers  and  rolls  of the  recipients  of  the  malikana maintained  by  the Collector of the district since  a  long time  past  show  that the  successive  proprietors  of  the Gidhaur  estate were receiving the malikana for a long  time past.   The State of Bihar stopped payment of  the  malikana allowance  from  April  1,  1958  on  the  ground  that  the proprietary interests of the Maharaja in the Gidhaur  estate vested  in  the  State and consequently  his  right  to  the malikana was extinguished. The  Maharaja  alleged  in  ’the  writ  petition  that   the permanent   malikana   was  payable  irrespective   of   his proprietary rights in his estates notified under sec. 3  and was  not income or rent from those estates nor a  charge  or encumbrance  on them.  He alleged that ’the stoppage of  the payment  of  the malikana was illegal and asked for  a  writ directing  the State to make payment of the  malikana.’  The State  did  not file any return to the petition.   The  High Court held that the Maharaja’s right to the malikana was not an  intermediary interest in the Gidhaur estate and did  not cease  with the extinction of his proprietary right  in  the estate.   Accordingly, the High Court issued a writ  in  the nature of mandamus commanding the State of Bihar to pay  the malikana due to the Maharaja from April 1, 1958.  The  State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

of  Bihar has filed this appeal on a certificate granted  by the High Court. Section  2 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is  the  definition section.   Section 2(i) defines an estate to mean  any  land included-under one entry in any of the general registers  of revenue paying 736 and  revenue  free lands and includes a share of or  in  any estate.  Section 2(jj) defines an "intermediary" in relation to any estate or tenure to mean a proprietor, tenure-holder, under tenure holder and trustee.  Section 2(jjj) defines  an "intermediary  interest"  as  meaning  the  interest  of  an intermediary  in an estate or tenure.  Section 2(o)  defines "proprietor" to mean a person holding in trust or owning for his  own  benefit an estate or part of an  estate.   Section 2(r)  defines  a "tenure holder" to mean a  person  who  has acquired  from  a proprietor or another  tenure  holder  the right  to  hold land for the purpose of collecting  rent  or bringing it under cultivation by establishing tenants on  it and  includes inter alia the holder of a tenure created  for maintenance  of any person.  Section 2(q) defines tenure  to mean the interest of a tenure holder or under tenure holder. Under  section  2A the expressions  "proprietor  or  tenure- holder"   and   "estate   or  tenure"   mean   and   include "intermediary" and the "intermediary interest" respectively. Section 3(1) states that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification declare that the estates or tenures of   a  proprietor  or  tenure-holder,  specified   in   the notification, have passed to and become vested in the State. Sections 4(a) and 23(1) are as follows :-               "  4.  (a) Consequences of the vesting  of  an               estate    or    tenure    in    the     State.               Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in   any               other  law for the time being in force  or  in               any  contract,  on  the  publication  of   the               notification under sub-section (1) of  section               3,  or sub-section (1) or 2 of section 3A  the                             following consequences shall ensue, na mely                (a)  Such  estate  or  tenure  including  the                             interests of the proprietor or tenure- holder in               any  building or part of a building  comprised               in such estate or tenure and used primarily as               office or cutchery for the collection of  rent               of such estate or tenure, and his interests in               trees,   forests,  fisheries,  jalkars   hats,               bazars mela and ferries and all other  sairati               interests as also his interest in all sub-soil               including  any  rights in mines  and  minerals               whether discovered or undiscovered, or whether               being worked or not, inclusive of such  rights               of  a lessee of mines and minerals,  comprised               in  such  estate  or tenure  (other  than  the               interests of raiyats or under raiyats)  shall,               with  effect  from the date of  vesting,  vest               absolutely   in  the  State  free   from   all               encumbrances  and  such proprietor  or  tenure               holder  shall cease to have any  interests  in               such estate or tenure other than the interests               expressly saved by or under the provisions  of               this Act."  737  .lm15  Section   24A(1)  Determination  of  compensation  of   any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

intermediary  of temporarily settled estate-(1) In the  case of  such intermediary of a temporarily settled  estate,  the Compensation   Officer  shall  determine  the   compensation payable  in respect of the transference to the State of  the interest  of  the intermediary in such  temporarily  settled estate, whether let in farm or held in khas, at a sum  equal to  twenty times of the malikana payable to him  during  the previous  agricultural year and, where the intermediary  has taken  out  the engagement of the lands  comprised  in  such estate  for a fixed period on the payment of a  fixed  jama, also  a sum equal to the pro rata refund of the  fixed  jama paid by him for the unexpired period of the engagement." It may be noted that ss. 2(ii), 2(iii), 2A and 24A were  in- serted  in  the  parent  Act  by  the  Bihar  Land   Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1953 (Bihar Act XX of 1954).  Section 4 was also amended by the same Act. Learned Attorney-General contended (1) that the right to the malikana  was an interest in the estates called the  Gidhaur estate specified in the notification of July 24, 1953 and on the  issue of the notification the right to  malikana  stood extinguished  and  (2) alternatively, the  Maharaja  was  an intermediary  of  temporary settled estates  in  respect  of which  the malikana was payable and on the  transference  of his  intermediary interests in those estates, his  right  to the malikana stood extinguished and he became entitled  only to the compensation payable under see. 24A. Regulation  VIII of 1793 (sec. 43) described malikana as  an allowance   to   proprietors  in  consideration   of   their proprietary rights.  Baden-Powell’s Lands Systems of British India,  Vol.  II,. p. 717 said that malikana in  Bengal  and places  other than the Punjab usually means an allowance  to an ex-proprietor by way of solatium for a lost right. The  custom of ’Paying malikana allowance to displaced  pro- prietors  may  be traced back to the  Moghul  period.   "The claims  of the ancient zemindars and village  headmen,  when thus  displaced  were usually recognised to  the  extent  of giving them an allowance for subsistence, and sometimes they continued to receive this allowance in the shape of payments from  the  new occupants called  russoomi-zemindaree."  (See Phillips  on  Law Relating to the Land.   Tenures  of  Lower Bengal,  p.  126).   It  was  said  that  "Malikana  is  the unalienable  right  of proprietorship." (see the  answer  of Ghulam  Hosein Khan, Appendix No. 16 to Mr. Shore’s  Minutes of 2nd April 1788 quoted in C.D. Field’s Regulations of  the Bengal  Code  p. 717).  The Regulations  from  1788  onwards recognised this custom/.  Regulation VIII of 1793, secs.  43 to 738 47 provided that in the event of the proprietor refusing  to accept  a reasonable settlement his lands were to be let  in farm  or  held khas.  When the lands were let in  farm,  the farmer  was to engage to pay 10% of the jama as malikana  to the  excluded  proprietors in addition to the jama  and  the Government  was  to  be considered ,as  guarantees  for  the payment.   The  malikana was realisable from the  farmer  as arrears of revenue.  When the lands were held in khas 10% of the  net  collections was to be paid as  malikana  from  the treasury.  Section 5 of Regulation VII of 1822 repealed  the existing  regulations  regarding  malikana  and  substituted fresh  provisions  for such allowance.  The  new  provisions were  declared by section 11 of Regulation IX of 1833 to  be prospective  only  and  to  be  applicable  solely  to   the settlements  made under them. (see Clarke, Regulations  Vol. I  p. 71).  Regulation VII of 1822 was  ,originally  enacted for the ceded and conquered Provinces, Cuttack, Pataspur and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

its  dependencies.   It was extended to other  Provinces  by sec.  2  of  Reg.  IX of 1825.  Later  it  was  repealed  as regards  the North Western Provinces by Act XIX of 1873  and fresh provisions for allowance to displaced proprietors were substituted.  The malikana was for a term of years when  the proprietors  were dispossessed from management  temporarily. It  was  a permanent grant when the proprietors’  rights  in their lands were ,completely extinguished. The  decisions  under the Limitation Acts  relating  to  the malikana  turned on the particular language of  those  Acts. Clause  12 of S. 1 of the Limitation Act of 1859  seemed  to make it imperative on the courts to deal with malikana as an interest  in land and to treat a claim for it as  barred  if not made within a period of 12 years after the last  receipt by  the proprietor. (see Herranund Shoo v. Mst.   Ozeerun  & Ors.  (1),,  Govinda Chunder Roy Choudhuri  v.  Ram  Chunder Chowdhury(2).  But under the Limitation Act of 1877 the non- receipt  of  malikana for 12 years did  not  extinguish  the right  and  malikana could be sued for within  twelve  years from  the  time when it became due. (see  Hurmuzi  Begum  v. Hirday Narayan(3).  In Jaggo Bai v. Utsava Lal(1) the courts below  treated malikana as immovable property and since  the point  as to its not being immovable property was not  taken earlier,  the  Privy Council did not allow the point  to  be taken before it for the first time.  Nevertheless the  Privy Council held that a suit to establish a right as to malikana was not a suit for possession within the meaning of art. 141 and was governed by art. 120 ,of the Limitation Act of 1908. Though  malikana is not a charge ,on immovable property  the explanation  to art. 132 of that Act declared that  for  the purposes  of  that  article, it was  "deemed"  to  be  money charged on immovable property. (1) 9 W. R. 102.          (2) 19 W.R. 95. (3) 5 Cal. 92 1.         (4) 51 Allahabad 439.                             739 Malikana  is  not rent. (see Bhoalee Singh v.  Mst.   Neemoo Behool(1) and Syed Shah Najamuddin Hyder v. Syed Zahid  Hos- sein(1).   It is not rent or revenue derived from  land  and not  assessable  as  agricultural income.  (Maharaja  P.  S. Bahadur  v. State of Bihar(3).  In Deo Kuar v. Man Kuar  (4) malikana  was  described as a grant of a portion of  a  land revenue.   For  purposes of the Pensions Act,  1871  because sec. 3 of the Act interpreted the expression "grant of money or land revenue" to include anything payable on the part  of the  Government  in respect of a right.  The  Privy  Council held  that  malikana was something payable on  the  part  of Government  in  respect  of a right  and  therefore  a  suit relating to malikana was not cognizable by the court without a certificate from the Collector.  The plea of bar under the Pensions, Act is not taken in the present appeal. Malikana is not an incumbrance on the estate of the proprie- tor liable to pay it and is not extinguished on the sale  of that  estate for recovery of arrears of land  revenue  under Act XI of 1859. (see Mahendra Narayan Roy Chowdhuri v. Abdul Gafur  Choudhury (5) . The person in receipt of a  permanent malikana  is,  not  a proprietor of  the  estate  for  which malikana  is  payable  and  has no  title  to  the  alluvial accretion to the estate, (see Soudamini Dassya v.  Secretary of State for India (6) The  proprietors  of  the Gidhaur estate  in  Bihar  are  in receipt  of  a permanent malikana for over a  century.   The origin  of this malikana allowance is not known.  From  time immemorial it has been customary in Bihar to pay a permanent malikana  allowance to ex-proprietors in lieu of their  lost proprietary right.  Phillips in his Law Relating to the Land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

Tenures  of Lower Bengal, pp. 144, 147, 269, said  that  the proprietors  of  the soil in  Biharuniversally  claimed  and possessed a right of malikana and he endeavoured in vain  to trace  its  origin  in Bihar.  The  malikana  right  of  the excluded  proprietors  in  Bihar  was  acknowledged  in  the Regulations  passed on August 8, 1788.  At the time of  Per- manent   Settlement,  the  new  grantees  were   forced   to acknowledge  this right. (see Baden-Powell,  Land-System  of British  India, Vol.  I pp. 516, 517).  The Bihar  Board  of Revenue Misc.  Rules 1939, art. 342 p. 166 divides’ malikana into two classes.  Malikana of the first class is for a term of Years only, that is, during the currency of a settlement. Malikana  of the second class is permanent.  It states  that "the  Bihar  malikana  falls  under  this  class  and  is  a compensation  permanently granted to the proprietors ...  It is  of  a pensionary nature and does not  depend  upon  col- lections." The permanent malikana is payable at the treasury on (1) 12 W. (2)  8 C. L. J. 300 at 450. (3)  18 Patna, 101 8. (4)  21 1. A. 148,160,161. (5)  35 C. W. N. 1233. (6)  50 Cal. 522,538, 545. 740 April  1, and October 1, every year on presentation  of  pay orders  issued  by  the  Collector  accompanied  by  a  life certificate of the recipient. There can be no doubt that the malikana payable to the  pro- prietors of the Gidhaur estate is a permanent grant of money in lieu of their proprietary rights in lands originally held by them.  The proprietors retained certain estates.  On  the publication of the notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms  Act,  1950 the interest of the  Maharaja  in  those estates  was extinguished.  But the malikana payable to  him is not an interest in those estates and did not cease on the issue of the notification. Annexure  A  to  the writ application shows  that  cess  was deducted  from the malikana.  Under secs. 5 and 421  of  the Cess Act., 1880 cess is charged on immovable property and is payable  by the holder of an estate or tenure or  chaukidari chakran lands and by a cultivating raiyat.  It is not  known under  what circumstances cess used to be deducted from  the malikana.  From the fact that cess was so deducted it is not possible to hold that malikana is an interest in the estates held by the Maharaja. In this Court the appellant raised the second contention for the first time.  The learned Attorney-General contended that the  malikana  was  payable  in  respect  of  certain  other estates,  that  the  Maharaja  should  be  regarded  as   an intermediary  of those estates, and that on the  vesting  of those estates in the Government the right to malikana ceased and the Maharaja ’became entitled to compensation only under sec. 24A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.  The State  of Bihar  has filed a petition asking for an  ,order  admitting certain  documents as additional evidence.  We have  allowed this  petition.   The  first document is  a  letter  of  the Collector,  Monghyr,  stating that the  Gidhaur  estate  was getting  malikana  in  respect of 17  tauzis  noted  in  the margin.  The second document is the khewat of those  tauzis. They show that various persons other than the Maharaja  were the proprietors of the estates comprised in the tauzis.  The petition  states that all these estates have  been  notified under  sec. 3 and have now vested in  the  State-Government. The third document is the notification published on July 24,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

1953  showing  the  estates of which the  Maharaja  was  the proprietor  and which have now vested in the  State  Govern- ment.  On the publication of the notification under sec.  3, all the estates in respect of which the malikana is  payable including the interest of any intermediary therein vested in the Government free from all incumbrances.  But the Maharaja is  not  a proprietor, tenure holder or an  intermediary  of those  estates.  The malikana is not rent or income  derived from  the  estates.   Nor is his Tight to  the  malikana  an incumbrance  on them.  The Maharaja’s right to the  malikana is not an intermediary interest in the estates 741 and did not vest in the Government.  Consequently he has  no right  to claim compensation for the malikana under s.  24A. That  section  provides for  determination  of  compensation payable to the intermediary of a temporarily settled  estate is  respect  of the transference to the  Government  of  the interest  of the intermediary in such estate.  The  Maharaja had  no  intermediary  interest  in  the  estates  for   the transference of which he could claim any compensation  under sec. 24A. In  State  of Uttar Pradesh v. Kunwar Sri  Trivikram  Narain Singh  (1) this Court held that an allowance of a fixed  sum of  money  computed on the basis of 1/4th share of  the  net revenue of certain estates payable by the Government to  the ex-jagirdars as compensation for abandonment of their  right in those estates was not a right or privilege in respect  of land in any estate or its land revenue within the meaning of S.  6 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Zemindari Abolition and  Land Reforms  Act,  1951,  and on the  issue  of  a  notification vesting  those  estates in the Government the right  to  the allowance  did  not cease.  The allowance in that  case  was described  as a pension.  It may be that the  allowance  was not   strictly  a  malikana.   Nevertheless  the   case   is instructive.   It  shows  that  an  allowance  paid  to  ex- jagirdars in consideration of the extinction of their rights in  land  is  not an interest in the  land.   The  permanent malikana  stands  on the same footing.  It is  an  allowance paid to ex-proprietors for extinguishment of their right  to the estate formerly held ’by them.  It is not an interest in that estate, nor an incumbrance on it, and does not cease on the vesting of the estate in the Government. In  the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. G.C.              Appeal dismissed. (1) [1962] 3 S. C. R. 213, 226-228. 742