Chintaman Pandit v. State Government of M. P. — 1965 DIGILAW 163 (MP)

ORDER Dixit, C. J. 1. This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing two orders passed by the State Government on 4th April 1963 and 7th September 1964 in circumstances to be presently stated. The applicant also prays that a direction be issued to the opponent-State for the hearing and decision according to law of the representation submitted by him in regard to his rights in certain Maufi lands which was rejected by the impugned orders. 2. The applicant claims that according to a Sanad granted in 1911 by the then Maharaja of the former Dewas State (Senior), certain Muafi land situated in village Detottar admeasuring 11.78 acres was given exclusively to his father and some other lands situated in Mauza Datottar and Dewas were given jointly to his father and two uncles that after the death of his father the Maufi lands measuring 11.78 acres situated in Datottar were mutated exclusively in his name, but that other lands with the consent of all the members continued to be under the management of his uncle Parashuramji and after his death the respondent No. 2 Dr. Chandrashekhar was managing the Lands and is still doing so. His further averment is that in 1950 when the respondent No. 2 declined to give him his share in the income of the joint Maufi lands he complained to the Deputy Commissioner. Manti Department, Indore, on 30th January 1954 claiming is share of profits for the previous four years. The petitioner's complaint was enquired it to by the Collector, Indore, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him according to an order passed on 28th December 1954 by the Raj Pramukh of Madhya Bharat State with regard to the distribution and disposal of Aukaf and Maufi cases. On 14th April 1959 the Collector, Indore, made an order in favour of the petitioner. The respondent Chandrashekhar then appealed to the Commissioner against the Collector's order contending that the Collector had no jurisdiction to pass any final order in the matter and that he should have submitted the case to the Commissioner for orders. This contention found favour with the commissioner who set aside the order of the Collector and remitted the matter to him for a fresh enquiry and report. This contention found favour with the commissioner who set aside the order of the Collector and remitted the matter to him for a fresh enquiry and report. This order of the Commissioner was upheld in revision by the Board of Revenue. 3. The Collector then again enquired into the matter and made a report to the Commissioner suggesting the acceptance of the petitioner's claim. The Commissioner, Indore, Division, then submitted the matter to the Government for final orders with a recommendation that the petitioner's claim should be accepted. This reference to the Government was made by the Commissioner in accordance with, the direction contained in the last paragraph of the order dated 28th December 1954 passed by the Raj Pramukh of the former State of Madhya Bharat. On 4th April 1963 the Government passed an order rejecting the proposal of the Commissioner, Indore, adding that the petitioner Chintaman Pandit was at liberty to seek relief in regard to his rights in the Maufi lands in the appropriate Court of law. The petitioner then filed a petition for review of the order passed by the Government on 4th April 1963 contending that the order dated 4th April 1963 was passed without hearing him, that as it did not give any reasons he was unable to know the grounds for rejection of his claim; and that the Government had not given any decision on merits, and praying that the claim made by him in regard to the share of his income in the lands under the management of the respondent No. 2, Chandrashekhar be decided on merits. This review petition was heard by the Revenue Minister who rejected it on 7th September 1964. 4. This review petition was heard by the Revenue Minister who rejected it on 7th September 1964. 4. Shri Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that under the order dated 28th December 1954 of the Raj Pramukh of Madhya Bharat and the Inam Rules of Dewas State, 1916, the Government was bound to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to his rights in the Maufi land under the management of the respondent No.2, that the Government alone could decide the dispute in a quasi-judicial manner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and, therefore, the Government erred in rejecting on 4th April 1963 the recommendation made by the Commissioner without hearing the petitioner and just by directing him to approach the competent Court of law for the redress of his grievance; that the Revenue Minister should have seen this infirmity in the hearing of the reference made by the Commissioner and should have allowed the review petition filed by the applicant; and that he was not justified in making observations on the merits of the petitioner's claim while rejecting the review petition. In support of his contention that while deciding a matter of Maufi and Inam rights under the Dewas State Inam Rules the Government was required to act judicially, give an opportunity of hear to the parties and give reasons for its decision, learned counsel relied on Govindrao Vs. State of M.P. 1964 JLJ 613= AIR 1965 SC 1222 =1965 MPLJ 566, Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. P.N. Sharma [2] and Shri Bhagwan Vs. Ram Chand [3]. 5. In the return filed by the opponent No.2 Chandrashekhar it has been averred that the applicant is not entitled to any share in the Inam lands under his management; and that under the Dewas State Inam Rules Inam lands were impartible properties and succession to them was governed by the rule of primogeniture and he being the eldest son in the eldest branch was entitled to the Inam lands under his management to the exclusion other members who were entitled to receive maintenance allowance only. It has been further stated that as the matter as regards the interest of the petitioner in the Inam lands was one which the Government was competent to decide in the exercise of its sovereign powers, it was not necessary for the Government to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant; and that, as a matter of fact, the review petition filed by the applicant was decided by the Revenue Minister after hearing him and the petitioner's claim was rejected on merits. The third respondent has filed a return supporting the petitioner. 6. Shri Chaphekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, relying on Sheikh Sultan Sani Vs. Shekh Ajmodin 20 IA 50, submitted that the question whether the petitioner was or was not entitled to any share in the Maufi lands under the management of the respondent No.2 was one which the Government alone was competent to decide in the performance of its sovereign rights; and that the applicant could not, therefore, claim that he should have been heard by the Government at the time his representation claiming rights in the Inam lands under the management of the respondent No.2 was taken up for consideration by the Government. Learned counsel proceeded to say that by the order dated 4th April 1963 the Government rejected the petitioner's claim on merits and the suggestion contained in that order that the applicant could approach the competent Court for the settlement of his dispute did not constitute the ground for the rejection of the petitioner's claim. It was said that though under rule 11 of the Dewas State Inam Rules, 1916, all questions "regarding Inam property" were excluded from the jurisdiction of civil Courts, a civil Court could decide those questions if there was an order of the State Government to the contrary; and consequently the Government acted within its rights in directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court for an adjudication of the dispute raised by him with regard to his interest in the Inam lands in question. It was, therefore, urged that there was no ground for reviewing the order passed by the Government on 4th April 1963 and the petitioner's application for review was rightly rejected by the Revenue Minister on 7th September 1964 after hearing him. 7. In our judgment, this application must be granted. It was, therefore, urged that there was no ground for reviewing the order passed by the Government on 4th April 1963 and the petitioner's application for review was rightly rejected by the Revenue Minister on 7th September 1964 after hearing him. 7. In our judgment, this application must be granted. At the outset, it must be stated that in the former Dewas State (Sr), matters of succession to Inam and Maufi lands and rights therein of the parties concerned were determined by the Ruler in his capacity as the sovereign. After the formation of Madhya Bharat the decision of such matters was entrusted exclusively to the Raj Pramukh under one of the Articles of the Covenant entered into between the Rulers of Gwalior, Indore and other Central India States including Dewas (Sr). When the new State of Madhya Pradesh was formed under the States Re-organisation Art, 1956, and the State of Madhya Bharat ceased to exist, these powers of the Raj Pramukh vested in the Government of Madhya Pradesh; and the Government alone is now competent to decide these questions in the performance of its sovereign duties. So far as the present case is concerned, this position is very clear from the Dewas State Ina m Rules, 1916. Rule 3 of the said Rules lays down that– "Enquiry into State Inams and enquiry into any title to the Inams may be made from time to time by such Officer or body of officers as the State may direct." Then rule 11 says : "All questions regarding Inam property are excluded from the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Court unless the State orders to the contrary." It is plain from these rules that all questions relating to Inam property situated in the former Senior Dewas State have to be decided by the Government or by such Officers of the State as the Government may direct and cannot be the subject-matter of adjudication in a civil Court unless and until the Government orders that any question relating to Inam property can be decided by a civil Court. It is noteworthy that rule 11 does not permit the Government to entrust a particular case to a civil Court for decision. What it does is to enable the Government to pass a general order giving to the civil Courts jurisdiction to decide any particular question or questions regarding Inam property. It is noteworthy that rule 11 does not permit the Government to entrust a particular case to a civil Court for decision. What it does is to enable the Government to pass a general order giving to the civil Courts jurisdiction to decide any particular question or questions regarding Inam property. No such general order of the then Ruler of Dewas State, or of the Raj Pramukh of Madhya Bharat, or of the Government of Madhya Pradesh has been placed before us by the respondent No.2. In the absence of such a general order, the direction contained in the Government's order dated 4th April 1963 that the petitioner could seek redress of his grievance in a Court of law was utterly contrary to rules 3 and 11 and illegal. If the direction was no more than a suggestion as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 said, then the suggestion was clearly misleading. 8. Now, under the order which was passed by the Raj Pramukh on 28th December 1954 the Commissioner, Indore Division, was empowered to place before the Government the record of the enquiry conducted by the Collector into the petitioner's application dated 30th January 1954 with his own recommendations for final orders. When the matter was referred by the Commissioner to the Government, a duty was cast on the Government under rule 3 of the Inam Rules to decide the matter on merits after hearing the petitioner and the opponents. But the Government did not do so. Neither the petitioner nor the opponents were heard at the time of considering the report made by the Commissioner. The order which the Government passed on 4th April 1963 rejecting the Commissioner's proposal gave no reasons whatsoever in support of it. It simply said that the Government while rejecting the Commissioner's proposal has ordered that the petitioner Chintaman can initiate proceedings in the competent Court in regard to his rights in the lands in question. It is not at all clear whether the decision of the Government to turn down the recommendation made by the Commissioner was influenced solely by the consideration that the petitioner had the remedy of a civil suit for establishing his rights. It is not at all clear whether the decision of the Government to turn down the recommendation made by the Commissioner was influenced solely by the consideration that the petitioner had the remedy of a civil suit for establishing his rights. If the Government was so influenced, then its decision dated 4th April 1963 is clearly vitiated as under rule 11 of the Inam Rules the Government had no power to direct the petitioner to take the matter to a civil Court and refuse to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits. If, on the other hand, it be taken that the Government decided the matter on merits on 4th April 1963, even then the decision cannot be allowed to stand for the reason that the matter was decided without hearing the petitioner as the record clearly shows. Rule 3 of the Inam Rules, which gives to the Government the power to deal with the rights of citizens claiming interest in Inam lands lays upon the Government a duty to decide those rights in a judicial manner. The Government must, therefore, act in accordance with the principles of natural justice before exercising the jurisdiction and the powers under rule 11. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan Vs. Ram Chand (supra), the power to determine questions affecting rights of citizens impose a limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In Govindrao Vs. State of M. P. (supra) the Supreme Court has considered the nature of the function performed by the Government in passing an order under section 5 (3) of the C.P. and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemption Act, 1948. That provision enabled the Government to make grants of money or pension-essentially political in character. The Supreme Court held that the provision laid upon the Government a duty to be performed in a judicial manner and that before making an order under section 5 (3) the Government must give an opportunity to the claimants to state their case in the light of the report of the Deputy Commissioner and must also give reasons in support of its order. It was observed by the Supreme Court : "That order gives no reason at all. The Act lays upon the Government a duty which obviously must be performed in a judicial manner. It was observed by the Supreme Court : "That order gives no reason at all. The Act lays upon the Government a duty which obviously must be performed in a judicial manner. The appellants do not seem to have been heard at all. The Act bars a suit and there is all the more reason that Government must deal with such cases in a quasi-judicial manner giving an opportunity to the claimants to state their case in the light of the report of the Deputy Commissioner. The appellants were also entitled to know the reason why their claim for the grant of money or a pension was rejected by Government and how they were considered as not falling within the class of persons who it was clearly intended by the Act to be compensated in this manner," Therefore, whether the matter of the petitioner's rights in the Inam lands under the management of the respondent No.2 is regarded as political in character to be decided by the Government in the exercise or its sovereign powers, as contended by learned counsel for the said respondent; or whether it is treated as one to be decided judicially on a consideration of the relevant Sanads and entries in the revenue records, as was urged by learned counsel for the applicant, in either case the Government was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the opponents before passing the order that it did on 4th April 1963. But neither the petitioner nor the respondents were heard and the order dated 4th April 1963 does not give any reasons at all for rejecting the recommendations made by the Commissioner on the petitioner's application dated 30th January 1954. Here also the Inam Rules bar a suit and there was, therefore, all the more reason that the Government should have dealt with the petitioner's case in a quasi-judicial manner. The order dated 4th April 1963 of the Government cannot, therefore, be sustained. 9. If the order of the Government dated 4th April 1963 cannot be allowed to stand, then it follows that the subsequent order passed by the Revenue Minister on 7th September 1964 rejecting the petition filed by the applicant for review of the order dated 4th April 1963 must also fall. 9. If the order of the Government dated 4th April 1963 cannot be allowed to stand, then it follows that the subsequent order passed by the Revenue Minister on 7th September 1964 rejecting the petition filed by the applicant for review of the order dated 4th April 1963 must also fall. It must, however, be added that the Revenue Minister rejected the review petition not on a consideration of the grounds urged by the applicant for a review of the order dated 4th April 1963 but by simply making observations having a bearing on the merits of the claim put forward by the petitioner. In so doing he altogether overlooked the fact the applicant sought review on the ground that by the order dated 4th April 1963 there was no decision on merits of the matter and that the order was vitiated inasmuch as it was passed without hearing him. The petitioner did not desire to canvass the merits of his claim at the time of the hearing of the review petition itself. He would, have done that if the review petition had been allowed, and the matter had been reopened for hearing on merits. It is well known and well settled that an application for review does not of necessity by the mere fact of its being filed reopen questions decided by the order or decision sought to be reviewed. Those matters are reopened only after the application for review is accepted. The question whether a review petition should be accepted or rejected has to be decided with reference to the grounds on which review is permissible and not on the merits of the claim. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The orders dated 4th April 1963 and 7th September, 1964 are quashed and the respondent-State is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 30th January 1954 as submitted to it on reference by the Commissioner, Indore Division, in accordance with law and after giving the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and other persons affected an opportunity of, hearing. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.