Case: The State of Bihar &amp; Another Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur

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 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 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 Permanent 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 collections."The permanent malikana is payable at the treasury on April 1, and October 1, every year on presentation of pay orders issued by the Collector accompanied by a life certificate of the recipient.12. 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 the notification under Section 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.13. Annexure A to the writ application shows that cess was deducted from the malikana. Under Sections 5 and 41 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.14. 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 Section 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 Section 3 and have now vested in the State Government. The third document is the notification published on July 24, 1953 showing the estates of which the Maharaja was the proprietor and which have now vested in the State Government. On the publication of the notification under Section 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 encumbrances. 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 fight to the malikana an encumbrance on them.The Maharajas right to the malikana is not an intermediary interest in the estates 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 in 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 Section 24A.15. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Trivikram Narain Singh, 1962-8 SCR 218 at pp. 226, 228 = (AIR 1968 SC 799 at pp. 804-805) 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 Section 6 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari 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 fight to the estate formerly held by them. It is not an interest in that estate, nor an encumbrance on it, and does not cease on the vesting of the estate in the Government.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. Learned Attorney-General contended (1) that the right to the malikana was an interest in the estates called the Girdhar 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 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 Sec. 24-A.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 proprietarycan 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 the notification under Section 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.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 Section 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 Section 3 and have now vested in the State Government. The third document is the notification published on July 24, 1953 showing the estates of which the Maharaja was the proprietor and which have now vested in the State Government. On the publication of the notification under Section 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 encumbrances. 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 fight to the malikana an encumbrance on them.The Maharajas right to the malikana is not an intermediary interest in the estates 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 in 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 Section 24A.