# STATE OF BJBAR A ANR v. MAHARA.JA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR

- **Citation:** [1968] 3 S.C.R. 734
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-04-11
- **Bench:** R. S. Bachawat, K. S. Hl!GDB
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-bjbar-a-anr-v-mahara-ja-pratap-singh-bahadur-4338
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Blluv Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950-N «;{ica1ib11 u,,,Ur 1. 3 of Act
V'1P"ll all estates in Stat.,_Permanent mdiloana payable
to
Zemil!dar
whether a proprietary or intemudiary irtlerest-Whether tubject to vesting
provision.
1be respondent was the proprietor of certain estates in Bihar. He was
also in receipt of a permanent malikana allowance from the CloYernm<nt.
After the passing of the Bibar Land Reforms Act 1950 fOllowed by a
notification under s. 3 thereof the .,,.tat<:a Of the respondent vest<ld in the
State of Bihar. In 1958 the Slate of Bihar stopped payment all the malikana
allowance Oil the ground that it was a proprietary inte!rest which bad >ested
in the State.
The respondent thereupon filed a petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution. The High Court held that the respoodent's riaht to
the malill:ana was not an intermediary interest and did not cease with Ike
atinction 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 belonaing to the respondent which on the issue of the notification under s. 3 became extinguished and (ii) alternatively, the respondent was an interme·
diary of temporary settled estates in respect of which malikana was payable
and on the transference of his intermediary interests in those ...iates, his
right to the malikana stood extinguished and he became entitled only to
the compensation payable under s. 24A
HEID : (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
original!} held by him.
The proprietors retained certain estate& and it
was only the interest in these estates that was !Oil 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 ..iates and did not ceaae on
the issue of the notification. [740 BJ
(ii) The respondent was not a pro(tietor, tenure-holder or an intermediary of the estates in respect of which malikana was paid to him. The
malikana was not rent or income 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 G<Wemment.
[740 HJ
Herranund Shoo v. Mst. Ozeerun & Ors., 9 W.R.
102.
Gobinda
Cliunder Roy Chaudhuri v. Rom Chunder Chowdhur,v,
19 W.R. 95,
Hurmuzi Begum v. Hirday Narayan, S Cal. 921 and Jaggo Bai v. U1sa1'a
Lal, 51 All. 439, distinguished.
Bhoalee Singh v. Mst. Neemoo Behoo, 12 W.R. 498, Syed Shah
Najamuddin Hyder v. Syed Zahid Horsein, 8 C.L.J. 300, Maharaia P. S.
Bahodur v. State of Bihar, 18 Pat. 1018, Deo Kuar v. Man Kuar, 21 I.A.
148 and Mahendra Narayan Ray Chowdhuri v. Abdul Gafur Chaudhry,
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.
;
I
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
BDIAll v. PRATAP SINGH (Bachawat, /.)
?35
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JUlllSDICTION : 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,
B
S. C. Agarawala, K. M. K. Nair and S. P. Singh, for the appelI
!ants.
Sarjoo Prasad and D. Goburdhun, for the respondent.

## Text

STATE OF BJBAR A ANR.
v.
MAHARA.JA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR
April 11, 1968
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. Hl!GDB, JJ.]
Blluv Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950-N «;{ica1ib11 u,,,Ur 1. 3 of Act
V'1P"ll all estates in Stat.,_Permanent mdiloana payable
to
Zemil!dar
whether a proprietary or intemudiary irtlerest-Whether tubject to vesting
provision.
1be respondent was the proprietor of certain estates in Bihar. He was
also in receipt of a permanent malikana allowance from the CloYernm<nt.
After the passing of the Bibar Land Reforms Act 1950 fOllowed by a
notification under s. 3 thereof the .,,.tat<:a Of the respondent vest<ld in the
State of Bihar. In 1958 the Slate of Bihar stopped payment all the malikana
allowance Oil the ground that it was a proprietary inte!rest which bad >ested
in the State.
The respondent thereupon filed a petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution. The High Court held that the respoodent's riaht to
the malill:ana was not an intermediary interest and did not cease with Ike
atinction 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 belonaing to the respondent which on the issue of the notification under s. 3 became extinguished and (ii) alternatively, the respondent was an interme·
diary of temporary settled estates in respect of which malikana was payable
and on the transference of his intermediary interests in those ...iates, his
right to the malikana stood extinguished and he became entitled only to
the compensation payable under s. 24A
HEID : (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
original!} held by him.
The proprietors retained certain estate& and it
was only the interest in these estates that was !Oil 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 ..iates and did not ceaae on
the issue of the notification. [740 BJ
(ii) The respondent was not a pro(tietor, tenure-holder or an intermediary of the estates in respect of which malikana was paid to him. The
malikana was not rent or income 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 G<Wemment.
[740 HJ
Herranund Shoo v. Mst. Ozeerun & Ors., 9 W.R.
102.
Gobinda
Cliunder Roy Chaudhuri v. Rom Chunder Chowdhur,v,
19 W.R. 95,
Hurmuzi Begum v. Hirday Narayan, S Cal. 921 and Jaggo Bai v. U1sa1'a
Lal, 51 All. 439, distinguished.
Bhoalee Singh v. Mst. Neemoo Behoo, 12 W.R. 498, Syed Shah
Najamuddin Hyder v. Syed Zahid Horsein, 8 C.L.J. 300, Maharaia P. S.
Bahodur v. State of Bihar, 18 Pat. 1018, Deo Kuar v. Man Kuar, 21 I.A.
148 and Mahendra Narayan Ray Chowdhuri v. Abdul Gafur Chaudhry,
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.
;
I
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
BDIAll v. PRATAP SINGH (Bachawat, /.)
?35
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JUlllSDICTION : 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,
B
S. C. Agarawala, K. M. K. Nair and S. P. Singh, for the appelI
!ants.
Sarjoo Prasad and D. Goburdhun, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
Bacbawat, J.-This appeal is directed against an order allowing a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Maharaja
Pratap Singh Bahadur was the proprietor of th~ estates collectively
known as the Gidhaur estate, in Monghyr district. On the publi·
cation of a notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (Bihar Act :XXX of 1950) on July 24, 19~3 'the
Gidhaur estate and the interests of the Maharaja therein vested in
D
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
E
receiving the malikana for a long time past. The State of Bihar
stopped payment of the malikana allowance from April 1, 1958
-l
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
F
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 incumbrance on them . He alleged that
"
the stoppage of the payment of the malikana .was illegal and asked
for a writ directin~ the State to make payment of the malikana.
The State did not file any return to the petition. The High Court
G
held that the Maharaja's right to the malikana was not an inter·
mediary interest in the Gidhaur estate and did not cease with the
extinction of bis proprietary right in the estate. Accordingly, the
High Court issued a writ in the nature of mandamus command·
ing the State of Bihar to pay the malikana due to the Maharaja
from April 1, 1958. The State of Bihar has filed this appeal on a
H
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 en1ry in any of the general registers of revenue paying
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] 3 s.c.R.
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 a/ia the
holder of a tenure created for maintenance of any person. Section
2( q) defines tenure to mean the interest of a tenure holder ;ir
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 btlcome 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 con-
. tained 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, namely :-
(a) Such estate or tenure including the interests
of th~ 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 collectfon 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, inclusiye 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)
s.h3JI, with effect f(om the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all incumbrances 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."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
BlllAR v. PRATAP SINGH (Bachawat, J,)
7.37
Section 24A ( 1) Determination of compensation· of
any 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 Jet 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(jj), 2(jjj); 2A anjl 24A were inserted 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
mal)kana 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 ma!ik.ana stood extinguished and lie became entitled only to the compensation payable under sec. 24A.
Regulation VIII of 1793 (sec. 43) described malikana as an
allo}Vance to proprietors in consideration of their proprietarv
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 sol;itium for a lost right.
The custom of paying malikana allowance to displaced proprietors may be traced back to the Moghul period. "The claims
of the ancient zemindars and village headmen, when thus displaced
G.
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
rassoomi-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
H
Ghulam Hosein Khan, Appendix No. 16 to Mr. Shore's Minute~
of 2nd A~ril 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
I
'
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968) 3 S.C.ll.
4 7 provided that in the event of the proprietor refusing to accept
a reasonable settlement his lands were to be let in farm or held
kbas.
When the lands were let in farm, the farmer was to engage
to pay 10% of the jama as malikana to the excl~ded proprietors
in addition to the jama and the Government was to be considered
A
as guarantees for the payment. The malikana was realisable
from the farmer as arrears of revenue. When the laoos were held
B
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 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 proprieD
tors were dispossessed from management temporarily. It was a
permanent grant when th~ proprietors' rights in their lands were
completely extinguished.
c
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
E
of 12 years after the last receipt by the proprietor.
(see Herranund Shoo v. Mst. Ozeerun & Ors.('), Govinda Chunder Roy
Chaudhuri v. Ram Chunder Chowdhury('). But under the Limitation Act of 1877 tire non-receipt of malikana for 12 years <lid
F
not extinguish the right and malikana could be sued for within
twelve years f~om the time when it became due.
(see Hurmuzi
Begum v. Hirday Narayan( 8 ). Jn Jaggo Bai v. Utsava Lal(')
the courts below treated malikana as immovable property and
since the point as to its not being immovable property was not takllll
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.
(I) 9 W. R. 102.
(3) S Cal. 921.
(2) l9W.R. 95.
(4) 51
Allahabad 439.
G
H
BIHAll v. PRATAP SINGH (Bachawat, I.)
73~
A
Malikana. is not rent.
(see Bhoalee Singh v. Mst. Neemoo
Behool(') and Syed Shah Najamuddin Hyder v. Syed Zahid Hossrin('). It is not rent or revenue derived from land and not
assessable as agricultural income.
(Maharaja P. S. Bahadur v.
State of Bihar(8 ). In Deo Kuar v. Man Kuar(') malikana was
described as a grant of a portion of a land revenue. For purposes
B 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 pan 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 Pension~
Act is not taken in the present appeal.
c
D
Malikana is not an incumbrance on the estate of the proprietor liable to pay it and is not extinguished on the sale of that estate
for recovery of arrears of land reven0e under Act XI of 1859.
(see Mahendra Narayan Roy Chowdhuri v. Abdul Gafur Choudhury('). 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 Stale for India(').
The proprietors of the Gidhaur estate in Bihar are in receipt
of a permanent malikana for over a century. The origin of this
E 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 t.'te Land Tenures of Lower Bengal,
pp. 144, 147, 269, said that the proprietors of the soil in. Bihar
universally claimed and possessed a right of malikana and · he
F
endeavoured in vain to trace its Qrigin in Bihar. The malikana
right of the excluded proprietors in Bihar was acknowled2ed in
the Regulations passed on August 8, 1788. At ihe time of Permanent Settlement, the new grantees were forced to acknowledge
this. right.
(see Baden-Powell, Land-8ystem of British · India,
Vol. I pp. 516, 517). The Bihar Board of Revenue Misc. Rules
G
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 col8
lections." The permanent malikana is payable at the treasury on
(I) 12 W.R. 498.
(2) 8 C. L. J. 300 at 450.
(3) 18 Patna, 1018.
14) 21 I. A. 148, 160, 161.
(S) 35 C. W. N. 1233.
(6) SOCal. 522, 538, S4S.
•
-~
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968) 3 S.C.R.
April l, and October 1, every year on presentation of pay orders
A
issued by the Collector accompanied by a life certificate of the
recipient.
There can be no doubt that the malikana payable to the proprietors 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
B
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 deductee. 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
oeess used to be deducte:I from the malikana.
From the fact that
oeess 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
c
D
the first time. The learned Altomey-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
E
right to malikana ceased and the Maharaja became entitled to
oeompensation 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 g~tting
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
F
·on July 24, 1953 showing the estates of whicb'-the Maharaja was
the proprietor and which have now vested in the State Government.
On the publication of the notification under sec. 3, all
·the estates in respect of which .the malikana is payable including
1he interest of any intermediary therein vested in the Government
free from all incumbrances. But the Maharaja is not a proprie-·
tor, tenure holder or an intermediary of those estates. The malikana is not rent or income derived ff9m the estates. Nor is his
. right to the malikana an incumbrance on them.
The Maharaja's
Tight to the malikana is not an intermediary interest in the 'estates
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
BIHAR v. PRATAP SINGH (Bachawat, J.)
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(') this Court held that an allowance of a fixed sum of
inoney 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.
(I) [1962] 3 S. C.R. 213, 226-228.