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

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.2. The Maharaja alleged in the writ petition that the permanent malikana was payable irrespective of his proprietary rights in his estates notified under Section 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 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 Maharajas 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.

Court's reasoning:
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.