Modi, J.—This is a writ application by Thakur Narpat Singh of Ahore under Art. 226 of the Constitution and has arisen under the following circumstances. 2. The petitioners case is that he is the jagirdar of on estate, known as the Thikana of Ahore (Tehsil Jalore), which is a scheduled jagir according to the first schedule of the Marwar Land Revenue Act (No. XL) of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Marwar Act). His father Thakur Rawat Singh died some time in 1946 whereupon his succession to the Jagir has been sanctioned by the Rajasthan State by their order dated the 26th August, 1953, but as a condition precedent to the recognition of this succession, the State has called upon the petitioner to pay what are called Hukamnama and Patta fees in accordance with the provisions of sec 190 of the Marwar Act. The amount of Hukamnama demanded from the petitioner is fixed at Rs. 21,562/2/- and the amount of Patta fees at Rs. 1103/1/3, total Rs. 22,665/9/3. The petitioners contention is that his liability as Jagirdar to pay Hukamnama and or Patta fees ceased altogether after the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. VI of 1952) came into force on the 18th February, 1952 Reliance was placed on sec. 4 of the said Act, the material portion of which runs as follows - "Notwithstanding anything contained in any existing Jagir law or any other law all Jagir lands shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be liable to payment of land revenue to the Government; and as from such commencement, the liability of all Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing Jagir law shall cease." The petitioner, therefore, prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate direction or order be issued restraining the Rajasthan State and the Collector of Jalore from realising the Hukamnama and the Patta fees from the petitioner. The State in its reply has traversed the petitioners claim and its main contention is that the levy of Hukamnama and Patta fees is not a tribute" within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act. The State in its reply has traversed the petitioners claim and its main contention is that the levy of Hukamnama and Patta fees is not a tribute" within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act. It has also been contended that although the Thikana Ahore is a scheduled Jagir within the meaning of the Marwar Act, the petitioner could not be accepted as the Jagirdar of that estate in law until his succession was recognized, and that the State was perfectly within its authority in demanding from the petitioner the Hukamnama and Patta fees as a condition precedent to the recognition of such succession. It has been further submitted that if the petitioner did not care to be recognised as the successor of the late Jagirdar of Ahore, the State will not insist on the recovery of the Hukamnama and Patta fees from him. Certain other pleas were also taken but we do not consider it necessary to refer to them in the circumstances of the case. 3. The principal point for determination in the present case is whether Hukamnama and Patta fees can be said to be a "tribute" within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act because if that is the real character of these payment, we have no doubt that the liability of the petitioner to pay them must come to an end under sec. 4 immediately after the Rajasthan Act was passed. We must, therefore, proceed to determine the meanings of the expressions "Hukamnama" "Patta fees" and "tribute". So far as the word "tribute" is concerned, the Rajasthan Act in sec. 2(r) defines it as follows— "Tribute" in relation to a Jagir includes Rekh, Rakam, Chhatund, Chakri or other charge of a similar nature. As the definition given is merely an inclusive one, we will have to determine the precise meaning of the word "tribute" for the purposes of the Rajasthan Act ourselves. But before we do so, let us consider what is the true meaning or nature of "Hukamnama" ? As the definition given is merely an inclusive one, we will have to determine the precise meaning of the word "tribute" for the purposes of the Rajasthan Act ourselves. But before we do so, let us consider what is the true meaning or nature of "Hukamnama" ? Sec. 190 of the Marwar Act contains the relevant provision in this connection, which is in these terms— 190 (1) When succession to a Scheduled Jagir is recognised by His Highness and renewal of the grant ordered, the person in whose favour the grant is ordered to be renewed shall execute, within one month of the communication to him of the orders, a Kabuliyat for payment of Hukamnama and other fees payable in accordance with sub-secs. (2) and (3). (3) The Government may describe the scales of Hukamnama and other fees payable by persons, whose succession is recognised, and in whose favour a grant is renewed. (3) The scale of Hukamnama and other fees leviable in accordance with the orders or practice in force at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be prescribed under sub-sec. (2). We consider it necessary to make a reference to certain other provisions contained in the same Chapter 10 of the Marwar Act, which appear to us to have a bearing on the question before us. Sec. 169 says that — "The ownership of all lands vests in His Highness and all Jagirs, Bhoms Sansans, Doils or similar proprietary interests are held and shall be deemed to be held as grants from His Highness." Sec. 170 provides that— "All grants shall be held by the original grantee or his successors during His Highness pleasure." Sec. 172 lays down that succession to all estates in land shall be in accordance with the personal law to which the deceased landlord was subject. Then, there is a provision for escheat of heirless estates, and for adoption, and that succession in the case of scheduled Jagirs must be governed by the rule of primogeniture and further that no person who is not a natural lineal descendant in the male line of the original grantee would be entitled to succeed to any grant as heir whether by adoption or otherwise. Thereafter we come to sec. 183 and the following sections which are important for our present purposes. These read as follows— 183. Thereafter we come to sec. 183 and the following sections which are important for our present purposes. These read as follows— 183. All grants of Scheduled Jagirs are only for the life-time of the holder, and no person is entitled to succeed to such Jagirs until his succession is recognised and the grant is renewed in his favour by His Highness. 184. Subject always to His Highness pleasure, the grant of a Scheduled Jagir on the death of the holder, shall be renewed in favour of the person entitled to succeed him in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 185. (1) A Scheduled Jagir, on the death of the holder, and until the renewal of the grant in favour of his successor, shall be resumed by the Government and taken under direct management. provided that the claimant to succession shall, in the absence of special orders of His Highness, be permitted to retain possession, pending orders of His Highness regarding the claim, if he is a direct lineal descendant in the male line of the last holder. (2) The Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the orders of His Highness permit a claimant in any case other than that referred to in sub-sec. (1), to retain possession of the grant, if there is no dispute regarding succession. (3) Where the grant of a Jagir resumed and taken under direct management under the provisions of this section is renewed in favour of the successor of the last holder, the income realised by the Government from such Jagir shall be paid to him after deduction of the expenses of management and of any fees and dues in respect of succession or mutation. (4) An application for refund of income under sub-sec. (3) shall be made to the Deputy Commissioner within one year of the date on which the order of recognition of succession and renewal of grant is received by the applicant. Then follows sec. 190 which we have already quoted above. 4. A careful consideration of these provisions shows that Hukamnama is a levy which is chargeable in lieu of the recognition of the succession of a person to the estate of his deceased ancestor, such estate being a scheduled Jagir. Then follows sec. 190 which we have already quoted above. 4. A careful consideration of these provisions shows that Hukamnama is a levy which is chargeable in lieu of the recognition of the succession of a person to the estate of his deceased ancestor, such estate being a scheduled Jagir. It is further important to bear in mind that before a person could be held to be entitled to succeed to a Jagir held by his deceased ancestors it is imperative that his succession be recognised and the grant renewed, although it may be pointed out that normally the grant must be renewed in favour of the person entitled to succeed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Until such succession is recognised and the grant renewed, the heir would be, strictly speaking, just a "claimant to succession", (See sec. 185), and not a Jagirdar as such. Again, in the meantime, that is, in between the death of the last holder and the renewal of the grant in favour of the successor, a scheduled Jagir falls to be resumed by the Government and managed directly. But this rule is to be relaxed in the case of successors connected with the last holder as direct lineal descendant thereof. This rule may also be relaxed in other cases where there is no dispute regarding succession and the claimant can in such cases be allowed to retain possession until his succession is recognised and he becomes a Jagirdar. It seems to us, therefore, that before a claimant acquires the status of a Jagirdar to a scheduled Jagir, according to law, it is imperative that his succession must have been recognised by the Maharaja as a condition precedent to his so succeeding. We may also point out and this is a factor of considerable significance, that once this status has received recognition after due conditions are fulfilled according to law, such recognition relates back to the death of the last holder, and as provided by sub-sec.(3) of sec 185, where a grant has been resumed and taken under direct management, the income realised by the Government from such Jagir must be paid back to him. But here again, this has been made subject to a deduction of the expenses of the management, and what is important for our present purpose, of all fees and dues in respect of succession or mutation. But here again, this has been made subject to a deduction of the expenses of the management, and what is important for our present purpose, of all fees and dues in respect of succession or mutation. Hukamnama is thus clearly a fee charged by the State for the recognition of the successor to the estate (being a scheduled Jagir held by his deceased ancestor. We were, in this connection, referred to the Administration Report of the year 1883 A. D. of the former State of Marwar by Munshi Hardayal Singh, and A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads by C. U. Aitchison, Vol. III, the Rajputana Gazetteer of Jodhpur by Erskine and also to the report of the Rajas-than-Madhya Bharat Jagir Inquiry Committee popularly known as the Venkatachar Committee, regarding the nature of Hukamnama, and it is sufficient to say that there is nothing in the aforesaid books which suggests anything different from the conclusion at which we have arrived. The last named publication contains the following remarks in this connection which may be quoted with advantage— "As a rule the Jagirdars pay a fee (nazrana) on their succeeding to their estates. These vary according to the locality. Strictly speaking, a Jagir estate is granted for single life only and on the death of the holder immediately becomes Khalsa, i.e., reverts to the fisc and so remains until a successor has been recognised, when it is again converted and a fresh Patta issued." Before proceeding further we may mention that Hukamnama may be paid either in cash or by handing over the usufruct of the Jagir for one year to the State. If paid in cash, it is seventy-five per cent of the annual income. When a son or grand-son succeeds, no Rekh is levied or Chakri demanded for that year while if an adopted son or a brother or cousin succeeds the Chakri or cash payment in lieu thereof is alone payable. 5. So far as the Patta fee is concerned, it is a fee, as the name suggests, charged for the grant of a new Patta to the successor, consequent upon the recognition of such successor at the holder of a Jagir. 6. 5. So far as the Patta fee is concerned, it is a fee, as the name suggests, charged for the grant of a new Patta to the successor, consequent upon the recognition of such successor at the holder of a Jagir. 6. The next question for determination is what is the true import of the word "tribute, as used in the Rajasthan Act and whether Hukamnama or the Patta fees, whose nature we have examined above, are a "tribute within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act read with the definition of "tribute" given in clause (r) of sec. 2 thereof. As we have already pointed out above the word "tribute" has not been precisely defined in the Act itself and such definition as has been given is merely a description one. "Tribute" is thus said to include Rekh,Rakam, Chhatund, Chakri or other charges of a similar nature. It is beyond dispute that the charges named above are of a recurring nature and are payable annually. According to Erskines Gazetteer of the Jodhpur State, the Jagirdars pay a yearly military cess called Rekh, which is supposed to be eight per cent of the gross rental value of their estates and further have to supply one horseman for every thousand rupees of revenue or one camel-Sowar for every Rs. 750/- or one foot soldier for every Rs. 500/- which all is designated as Chakri. This was later commuted into an annual cash payment. In Bikaner the fixed tribute is called Rakam and is also an annual payment and is generally about one-third of the income. In Udaipur this annual charge is called Chhatund and is ordinary one-sixth of the annual income of a Jagirdar. Thus, Rekh and Chakri in Marwar from which patta of Rajasthan the present case comes, are undoubtedly annual recurring charges. But Hukamnama or Patta fee are certainly not, and constitute a nonrecurring imposition. Nor do they fall within the general words occur-ing at the end of the definition in clause (r) namely, "other charges of a similar nature", because the charges in question are not analogous to those expressly mentioned in the definition itself. We consider that Hukamnama is a special impost and in its nature is essentially different from that of the charges mentioned in the definition. We consider that Hukamnama is a special impost and in its nature is essentially different from that of the charges mentioned in the definition. On behalf of the petitioner, we were, in this connection, referred to the definition of the word Tribute as given in certain well-known dictionaries. Thus, Websters New International Dictionary says that tribute is— (1) "An annual or stated sum of money or other valuable thing, paid by one ruler or nation to another, either as an acknowledgment of submission, or as the price of peace and protection, or by virtue of some treaty"; and (2) "A tax, impost, duty, rental, or the like, paid by a subject vassal to his sovereign or lord." The meaning of the word tribute as given in the Oxford English Dictionary Vol.11 is as follows — (1) "A tax or impost paid by one prince or State to another in acknowledgment of submission or as the price of peace, security and protection; and (2) "rent or homage paid in money or an equivalent by a subject to his sovereign or a vassal to his lord." These definitions, in our opinion, cannot be helpful for our present purposes, for we must determine the meaning of the word tribute in its special context as used in the Rajasthan Act. Interpreting sec. 4, we must properly take note of the fact that the Rajasthan State as it has emerged in the present shape is a combination of a number of Sates wherein the jagirdars paid certain annual charges to their respective State Government before the integration, which were called by various names. Thus, as already mentioned, in Jodhpur, the annual payments made by holders of scheduled jagirs were called Rekh and Chakri. Similar payments made in Bikaner were designated as Rakam, and in Mewar as Chhatund. Similar payments in other smaller States were, in all probability, being paid by the Jagirdars under other names of which the Legislature was presumable not aware. The Legislature was. therefore, compelled to use a single word to cover all such payments and it chose the word tribute which unfortunately has given rise to the present controversy. Similar payments in other smaller States were, in all probability, being paid by the Jagirdars under other names of which the Legislature was presumable not aware. The Legislature was. therefore, compelled to use a single word to cover all such payments and it chose the word tribute which unfortunately has given rise to the present controversy. Now, the intention of the Legislature while passing a law for the resumption of Jagirs in this State and until the Jagirs were actually resumed, was to charge land revenue with effect from the commencement of the Rajasthan Act, that is, the 18th February, 1952, and, at the same time, terminate the liability of the Jagirdars to pay the recurring charges (designated by the single word tribute) to the Government under any existing Jagir law. It seems to us, therefore, that the word tribute in sec. 4 was equated to land revenue, both being recurring charges, and a new annual charge was substituted for an old annual charge, and the new charge was called land-revenue as being more appropriate in the new set up of things. Viewed in this light, we are altogether unable to come to the conclusion that the Legislature could have thought of providing for a cessation of a non-recurring payment such as succession or Patta fees while providing for the abolition of the annual tribute such as Rekh or Chakri. Hukamnama, as explained above, is a special levy connected with the succession of a Jagirdar to his ancestors estate and upon which his very status as a Jagirdar rests in law and is radically different in its purpose from the recurring charges mentioned in the definition of the word tribute in the Rajasthan Act. We have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that the word tribute occurring in sec. 4 of trie Rajasthan Act does not cover payments such as Hukamnama or Patta fees, and that sec. 190 of the Marwar Act stands unaffected in so far as succession falls to be recognised under it. In this view it must follow that the contention of the petitioner that the Rajasthan Act exempts him from such payments, is without any merit and must be repelled. 190 of the Marwar Act stands unaffected in so far as succession falls to be recognised under it. In this view it must follow that the contention of the petitioner that the Rajasthan Act exempts him from such payments, is without any merit and must be repelled. We may point out in this connection that by virtue of the Rajasthan Administration Ordinance (No. I) of 1949, all the powers possessed by the Maharaja of the former State of Jodhpur vest in the Rajpra-mukh and, therefore, the Raj Pramukh has all those powers according to law to recognise a particular person as the successor of a previous holder of a scheduled Jagir and to renew the grant and, therefore, Sec. 190 of the Marwar Act retains its full force. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that in case this Court holds that his liability to pay Hukamnama and Patta fees stills remain unaffected in law, he will have no objection to pay it. In this state of affairs we do not consider it necessary to decide the question as to the consequences of such non-payment, and in any case, we do not purpose to decide that hypothetical question in the present case. There was some argument before us whether the liability to pay Hukamnama and Patta fees in a case of succession, which was in effect to be recognised from a period prior to the passing of the Rajasthan Act, would, in any case, be affected under sec. 4 of that Act; but we do not consider it necessary to examine that aspect of the matter because we have already arrived at the conclusion that the expression tribute as used in sec. 4 does not cover the payment of Hukamnama or Patta fees. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised the contention that a succession fee was charged during the regime of the former State of Jodhpur because the holder of Jagir would have enjoyed it for his entire life-time, but that a law for the resumption of Jagirs having been passed there was no jurisdiction for charging such a fee now. We have no doubt that this argument is devoid of all force because Hukamnama is levied in lieu of the recognition of the succession of a person to a schedule Jagir and not for his enjoyment thereof for a particular period. 9. We have no doubt that this argument is devoid of all force because Hukamnama is levied in lieu of the recognition of the succession of a person to a schedule Jagir and not for his enjoyment thereof for a particular period. 9. In order properly to determine whether succession or Patta fees are chargeable in a particular case, we are of opinion that the crucial consideration is that the estate, in respect of succession to which such charges are demanded by the State has not been resumed before the particular succession has opened under the law relating to resumption of Jagirs in force in this State, and further that the holder thereof is required to have his succession recognised by a competent authority in order to invest him with the status of a Jagirdar as such in law. It is admitted in the present case that the petitioners Jagir was not resumed until some time in 1954, and this succession to the late Jagirdar (father of the petitioner) opened in 1946, and in order that the petitioner possesses the status of a Jagirdar in law during all the years he has been in possession of the Jagir, he must have his succession recognised according to sec. 190 of the Marwar Act. We accordingly see no justification for holding that because the present petitioners enjoyment of his Jagir will be shortened by the law relating to resumption of Jagirs, he should be exempted from paying the Hukamnama and Patta fees, and we over-rule this contention. 10. We may add that if under the law the petitioner is entitled to any remission of Rekh and Chakri or land revenue for a particular year on account of the payment of Hukamnama by him for his succession, our judgment will not stand in the way of this securing such a concession. 11. The result is that there is no force in this writ application and we dismiss it with costs.