Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajvaidhya Pt. Ram Dayalu Sharma By ... vs Board Of Revenue on 26 February, 1988
Equivalent citations: 2(1988)WLN(REV)65
JUDGMENT P.C. Jain, J.
1. By this writ petition, petitioner Rajya Vaidhya Pt. Ram Dayalu Sharma (since deceased & is being represented by his legal representa-tives) had prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction for quashing the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated 12th December, 1973 and further prayed that the petitioner be allowed the annuity in respect of the State grants villages (1) Sarha Doongar, (2) Chak Sarna Doongar, (3) Basdi, (4) Chak Basdi, (5) Land in village Bhudarpura and villages Jairampura and Mundia, instead of the legal representatives of late Pt. Madan Mohan and late Pt. Jugal Kishore, as directed in the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner, dated 29th November, 1968 and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, dated 6th December, 1972.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that there is a temple of Thakurji Shri Sire Behariji at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur; for the up-keep and maintenance of Sevapooja and Bhograj thereof, the following villages were granted by the erst-while State of Jaipur:
_________________________________________________________________________________ S. No. Name of villages Tehsil & Land Revenue District _________________________________________________________________________________
1. Sarna Dungar Jaipur Rs. 1,99675
2. Chak Sarna Dungar Jaipur Rs. 520.33
3. Basdi Jaipur Rs. 148.06
4. Chak Basdi Jaipur Rs. 1,175 49
5. Land in village Bhudarpura Jaipur Rs. 9.26 _________________________________________________________________________________
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that he alone was recognized by the State in accordance with law, with the duty of maintenance, worship and performance of Seva-Pooja and Bhograj of Thakurji Shri Sire Behariji vide Matmi Order dt. 20th April, 1955, under the Jaipar Matmi Rules, 1945. It is further stated that there are other temples, viz., (1) Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji at Ramganj Bazar Jaipur; (2) Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji; (3) Thakurji Shri Mahadevji at Jairampura; (4) Thakurji Shri Radha Damodarji at Mundia and (5) Thakurji Shri Govind Deviji at Govindpura and these temples are the private temples of the parties. It is further the case of the petitioner that the State of Jaipur also granted (a) for Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur, one village Hariballabhpura in Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur; (b) for Thakurji Shri Radha Damodarji at Mundia land in village Mundia with the land revenue of Rs. 87.19; and (c) for temples of Shri Laxmi Narainji and Shri Mahadevji at village Jairampura, land in village Jairampura having land revenue of Rs. 104.14 and for all these State grants also the petitioner was recognized as the persou responsible for the Seva-Pooja and Bhograj of the said deities vide the said Matmi Order dated 20th April, 1955 under the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. The petitioner has also averred in the writ petition that for the Seva-Pooja and Bhograj of the temples of Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur and Thakurji Shri Govind Devji at Govindpura various Thikacedars (Jagirdars) had also granted certain lands of varying values. After resumption of the State Grants attached to the religious institutions and temples in Rajasthan on and from 1st August, 1960, the petitioner being the Matmidar, instead of filing separate claims.in respect of each temple, filed a consolidated claim in respect of all the aforesaid temples. On his filing the claim, objections were filed on or about 21st October, 1961, on behalf of Vaidhya Madan Mohanji and Vaidhya Jugal Kishoreji the predecessors respectively of respondents No. 4 and of respon-dents Nos. 6 to 9 respectively. In the objections they also alleged that they were performing Bhograj and Seva-Pooja of the temple of Thakuiji Shri Vijai Govindji situated at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur and, therefore, they were entitled to compensation to the extent of their share, i.e., 2/3rd in the aforesaid temple of Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji in the villages and lands, the description of which is as follows:
___________________________________________________________________________________ S. No. Name of village Tehsil Area Rent Remarks ___________________________________________________________________________________
1. Hariballabhpura Chaksu 1036.07 Rs. 1502/- State Grant
2. Gram Banskho Bassi 5.04 Rs. 30/- Grant by Thikanedar
3. Jaisinghpura Sanganer 15.00 Rs. 62.72 -do-
4. Bhenslana Phulera 21.16 Rs. 94.28 -do-
5. Buchasi Danta Ramgarh 36.02 Rs. 67.02 -do-
6. Dhingpur -do- 21.09 Rs. 20.04 -do-
7. Govindpura Shri Madhopur 100.00 Rs. 300.00 -do-
8. Machera Amer Kothi - -do-
___________________________________________________________________________________ A further objection was also filed separately that in accordance with the udgment of the High Court, they were further entitled to Rs. 138/-anually from the income of the Muafies given by Jagirdars and this has not been entered in the claim by the petitioner and, therefore, this amount of Rs. 138/- be also got paid from the annual claim. The case of the petitioner is that in these objections, late Pandit Madan Mohan and late Pandit Jugal Kishore did not raise any objection to the payment of compensation to the petitioner alone in respect of resumption of the State Grants attached to the Temple of Thakurji Shri Sireh Behariji and also the State grants attached to the Temples of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji and Thakurji Shri Mahadevji at Jairampura and Thakurji Shri Radha Damodarji at Mundia. The petitioner has submitted that during the course of enquiry before the Jagir Commissioner, the petitioner submitted the relevant judgments of the Revenue Courts, the Civil Courts including the Hon'ble High Court and the order of Matmi in favour of himself and in favour of his late father Raj Vaidhya Pt. Nand Kishoreji Sharma in order to substantiate that as regards the State Grants, late Pt. Madanmohan and late Pt. Jugal Kishore had no right, title or share what so ever in the compensation payable in respect of resumption of the State Grants and that the objections that were raised by the objector's had been finally decided and rejected by the Government of Jaipur State as well as by the Board of Revenue for Jaipur State. In the writ petition the petitioner has also pleaded that the Jagir Commissioner in the enquiry struck the following issues:
[1] Whether Shri Madanmohan and Shri Jugal Kishore are entitled to 2/3rd share in village Hariballabhpura?
[2] Whether the above two objectors are entitled to any share in the wells and Lands situated in villages other than Hariballabhpura?
[3] In case issue No. 2 is decided against the objectors, are they entitled to receive Rs. 138/- anually from the non-objector?
[4] What reliefs the objectors are entitled to?
4. With regard to issue No. 1, the Jagir Commissioner decided that the objectors had no right, title or share and that they failed to discharge the burden that they were entitled to 2/3rd share in village Hariballabhpura, and hence issue No. 1 was decided against the objectors.
5. As regards issue No. 2, the Jagir Commissioner held as under:
Regarding issue No. 2, it is conceded by both the parties that the buildings and Udak grants other than grants made by the State, are divisible and they have already been divided giving 2/3rd share to the objectors and 1/3rd to the Matmidar.
6. As regards issue No. 3, the Jagir Commissioner decided as follows: "So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, I do not think there is any necessity of going into the question of Matmidar paying Rs. 138/ To the objectors annually because the income of the property mentioned below will be taken together and then divided inlo 2/3rd and 1/3rd shares:
Kothi at Chomu Kothi Kachholiawali -3/4 share Bagichi Chomu Kothi Reengus Kothi at Palsana Kothi at Nimi Kothi at Khatu Kothi at Kochhor It was not practicable to divide wells into 2/3rd and 1/3rd shares, but it is not difficult to divide the entire income from the two shares into 2/3rd and 1/3rd shares.
7. Ultimately, the Jagir Commissioner passed the Qrder which is as follows:
The final result is:
(i) that the share of the objectors and the Matmidar in their buildings and 'Udak' grants that are not the State grants, will be according to decision given in the partition suit, namely that 2/3rd share will go to the objectors and 1/3rd to the Matmidar;
(ii) that their shares in the buildings will be as already determined in the partition suit on the basis of 2/3rd and 1/3rd going to objectors and Matmidar respectively; and (iii) that village Hari Vallabhpura was not an item for partition in the partition suit nor the objectors have led any evidence to establish that they are entitled to any share in Hari Vallabhpura which though donated to a private temple, is a State Grant and is fully covered by Resolution No. 17 of the erstwhile Jaipur State dated 26-2-1938 but this Resolution was operative till 'Udak' grant of Hari Vallabhpura existed. Future succession to or partition of Hari Vallabhpura as envisaged at the time of the passing of the above Resolution is no more practicable because it has been resumed to the State for ever. All that the Jagir Commissioner is to determine in this case is what annuity is to be paid in perpetuity to the deities of the two temples--Behariji and Vijai Govindji. In doing that he will have to take into account all the income of landed property granted to these two temples--may be by private persons or by the State. If he were to go by the shares held by the three Pujaries, we will be confusing deities for the Pujaries. It is not practicable proposition that the income of Hari Vallabhpura will be made basis of annuity when Shri Ram Dayalu Matmidar is performing Sevapooja and it will not be taken into account when the objectors Sarvshri Madan Mohan and Jugal Kishore are performing it. Council Resolution No. 17 was operative only when the subject-matter of that Resolution, namely, the State Grant was continuing in the hands of Matmidar. The position stands changed totally after resumption. It would have been a different matter if the compensation for this landed property was to be given once for all. The objectors and the Matmidar are now related to the point at issue only so far as performance of Sevapooja is concerned and for that on 'Osra' has already been fixed in the ratio of 2: 1-the objectors will perform Sevapooja for two years and Shri Ram Dayalu for one year. They will have to account for all expenditure that is incurred in Seva Pooja to the Devasthan Depart-ment and, as such, the only irresistible conclusion in the existing circumstances in the annuity that will be based on the entire rental income taken together and that Form No. 12(a) will be issued in favour of the objectors for two years and for Matmidar for one year as decided in the High Court judgment.
8. The petitioner, thus, submits that in view of the above observations, the question of payment of Rs. 138/- by the Matm dar to the objectors does not arise at all. Against the said judgment of the Jagir Commissioner dated 1st October, 1963, an appenl was preferred by the objectors in the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan under Section 39 of the Fajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and also by the petitioner Both the appeals were decided by the Board by one judgment dated 23rd January, 1964. While deciding the petitioner's appeal and Board held as under:
There is nothing in the judgment of the Civil Court to give rise to the suggestion that the respondents were charged with the duty of maintaining the temples and to perform the religious services in lieu of the enjoyment of the State Grant. As far as the State Grant is concerned, we are clearly of the opinion that this duty was cast upon the Matmidar Shri Ram Dayalu Sharma and no other. He alone was responsible to the State for the proper performance of the religious services or Seva Pooia and the maintenance of the temples at the time when the Jagir was resumed. He does not lose this position on the resumption of the Jagir and as such he is alone entitled under clause 7 of Schedule II of the Jagir Act to claim compensation for the resumed Jagir land in the shape of annuity in perpetuity unless and until the law of the |State withdraws this recognition and stops payment of annuity for some breach of condition or any other cause.
9. The petitioner, thus, submits that as per the decision given bv the Board in appeal, it was ordered that the annuity in perpetuity to Viiai Govindjf s temple for village Hari Ballabhpura, State Grant would be payable to the appellant only. To this exent the order of the Jagir Commissioner was modified.
10. As regards the appeal filed by the objectors, it was decided that the objectors would be paid compensation on the rental income of Rs 138/-from the gross rental income of the compensation claim of Sri Ram Dayalu Sharma.
11. Aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue regarding payment of Rs. 138/-, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue. The review petition was accepted on 5th October, 1966 and, thus the claim of the late Pt. Madanmohan and late Pt. Jugal Kishore in respect of ihe amount of Rs. 138/- was also rejected.
12. The dispute which is related with this writ petition arises sub-sequently when the Jagir Commissioner issued the provisional award on 23rd May,1968 after the receipt of the record from Board of Revenue. In the pro-visional award, it is contended by the petitioners that the income of the State grant village Hariballabhpura attached to the temple of Thakurji Shri Viiai Govindji was excluded but the income of all the state Grants, as mentioned above were included. Against the provisional award, late Pt. Madanmohan and Pt. Jugal Kishore again objected that they are entitled to get 2/3rd share out of the income of village Hariballabhpura as well as Rs. 138/-out of the income of Ram Dayalu. The petitioner also objected that the income of the villages which were granted by the State for Bhograj of the temples were not divisible and the annuity in respect thereof, the petitioner alone was entitled The Jagir Commissioner vide his order dated 29th November, 1968 decided as follows:
As regards objections raised by Shri Ram Dayalu (petitioner) for getting annuity on the income of the villages mentioned above as a sole Matmidar except village Hariballabhpura. I am constrained to reject the same, because this matter has already been decided bv the Board of Revenue, according to which he is to get annuity as a sole Matmidar for village Hariballabhpura only. Similary the objection of Shri Madanmohan and Shri Jugal Kishore for getting two third share in village Hariballabhpura is also rejected.
But the Jagir Commissioner upheld the objection of the objectors in respect of claim of Rs. 138/-. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Jagir Commission, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which was decided by the Board on 6th December, 1972. Through this judgment the objector's claim with regard to the share in the annuity in respect of the State Grant was recognised. The petitioner finding the said judgment of the Board of Revenue to be erroneous on accounts of error apparent on the face of the record filed an application for review and the review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 12th December, 1973. It is, under these circumstances.aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th December, 1972, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming relief as aforesaid.
13. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is an error apparent on the face of record. The Board of Revenue has not taken into consideration the previous judgments of the Board of Revenue dated 23rd November, 1964 & the judgment of, the Board of Revenue dated 5th October 1966, whereby the review petition of the petitioner was accepted by the Board in respect of Rs. 138/-. The contention of Shri Agrawal is that in the partition suit filed between the parties and the matter went upto the High Court and the partition was decreed; but it was not in respect of the properties namely the State Grants attached to the temple of Thakurji Sire Behariji, State grants attached to the temple of Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji the State grants attached to Thakurji Shri Radha Damodarji, temples of Shri Laxmi Narainji and Shri Mahadevji. He has further submitted that in that case no ausara (turn of worship) in respect of the State grant was fixed. The dispute before the Board of Revenue was the dispute in respect of State Grant of Hariballabhpura village only. The objectors never claimed any right in respect of other grants attached to the other temples. Shri Agrawal has further submitted that from the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 23rd November, 1964, it was clear that the objectors were not entitled in respect of State Grants. Shri Agrawal also pointed out that the observations made by the Board of Revenue with regard to making out a new case was totally against the record. Shri Agrawal, on the basis of the Matmi order dated 20th April, 1955 claimed that the petitioners were the holder of the State Grant and thus, the claim of the objectors was without any basis. Shri Agrawal also referred to Section 37 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act and contended that the Jagir Commissioner and the Board of Revenue failed to take into consideration the provisions contained in Section 37 of the said Act, which clearly provides that only such questions could be entertained for decision regarding the title between the parties as having not been finally decided by the competent court and since such questions of title have already been decided in favour of the petitioner and his father Pt. Nand Kishore by the competent Court of State and as such the findings in respect of the State Grant are without jurisdiction.
14. Shri Dalip Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to 9 submitted that the objections were filed before the Jagir Commissioner not only with regard to the village Hariballabhpura, but with respect to all the State Grants and, thus, the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is perfectly justified. He supported the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 6th December, 1972 on some what similar grounds which were canvassed before the Board on behalf of Pt. Jugal Kishore and Pt. Madanmohan.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective sub-missions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We have considered the objections filed by the objectors i.e. Pt. Madanmohan and Pt. Jugal Kishore. We are not impressed by the contention of Shri Dalip Singh that the obj ctors had filed objections with regard to the other State Grants and village Hariballabhpura. We have carefully gone through the various judgments inclu-ding the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner dated 1st October, 1963, judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 23rd November, 1964, and the Matmi Order dated 23rd April, 1955, passed in petitioner's favour under the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 and the judgment of the Revenue Commissioner, Jaipur City dated 29th September, 1942 and the order of the Board of Revenue, Jaipur dated 24th December, 1943. After hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th December, 1972 and the order of the Jagir Commissioner dated 29th November, 1968 in respect of payment of compensation in the form of annuity in perpetuity on account of the resumption of the State Grants for the Bhograj of the temple of Shri Sire Behariji and other temples cannot be maintained on the following apparent mistakes:
[1] A perusal of the objection petition dated 21st October, 1961, filed by late Pt. Madan Mohan and late Pt. Jugal Kishore would indicate that no objection was raised by them claiming co-ownership in the State Grant excepting the State Grant of Hariballabhpura which was negatived by the Jagir Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue. In this respect, the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner dated 1st October, 1963 and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 23rd November, 1964 are clear which negatived the contention of the objectors;
[2] That none of the State Grants were made the subject-matter of partition in the partition suit decided by the civil court. The various State grants attached to the various temples were never the subject-matter of dispute. The Jagir Commissioner in his judgment dated 1st October, 1963 considered the resolution No. 17 of the erstwhile Jaipur dated 26th February, 1938 and observed as follows:
Para (1) of the CR No. 17 is very clear that where Bhog grants cover landed property, partition of such grants is totally prohibited. May be, it was for this reason that in the suit for partition, the objectors have not included Hariballabhpura in the list of the properties that were to be partitioned.
[3] That in the order dated 23rd November, 1966, the Board of Revenue observed as follows:
There is nothing in the judgment of the Civil Court to give rise to the suggestion that the respondents were charged with the duty of main-taining the temples and to perform the religious services in lieu of the enjoyment of the State Grant. As far as the State Grant is concerned, we are clearly of the opinion that this duty was cast upon the Matmidar Shri Ram Dayalu Sharma and no other. He alone was responsible to the State for the proper performance of the religious services or Seva-Pooja and the maintenance of the temples at the time when the Jagir was resumed. He does not loss this position on the resumption of the Jagir and as such he is alone entitled under Section 7 of Schedule-H of the Jagir Act to claim compensation for the resumed Jagir land in the shape of annuity in perpetuity.
[4] In the order dated 6th December, 1972, the Board of Revenue did not take into consideration the order of review dated 5th October, 1966, passed by the Board of Revenue, while reviewing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 8th December, 1984, the Board observed as follows:
We, therefore, accept this review petition of the petitioner, set aside the order in appeal to the extent of the deduction of Rs. 138.00 from the rental income admissible in favour of the petitioner....
[5] That the questions by which late Pt. Madan Mohan and late Pt Jugal Kishore claimed right, title and interest as co-sharers in the disputed State Grants had already been decided by the Revenue Courts of Jaipur vide judgment of the Revenue Commissioner dated 29th September, 1942 and the Board of Revenue dated 24th December, 1943. As such in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 neither the Jagir Commissioner nor the Board of Revenue had the jurisdiction to determine the question of title again;
[6] That from the record, it is evident that from Matmi order dated 20th April, 1955, which was passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of disputed grants, the petitioner alone was recognized as the person responsible for Seva-Pooja and Bhograj of the deity. Consequently he was only the person on resumption of the State Grants entitled for payment of compensation in the form of annuity in perpetuity.
16. After deciding the case on merits there remains one legal objection, which requires decision. It has reference to the order dated 22nd January 1985. By this order, this Court had held that the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Hargovind respondent No. 5 was barred by time. Har Govind died on 19th March, 1983, but the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Har Govind was made on 3rd July, 1984. This Court dismissed the application as barred by time. But the question whether the writ petition has abated as a whole or only as against Har Govind, was left to be decided at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. The petitioners have filed an application on 20th February 1985, in which they have prayed that the order of dismissal of the application dated 3rd July, 1984 be set aside. It may be stated that the original petitioner Raj vaidhya Pt. Ram Dayalu Sharma expired on 27th April, 1979 and an application for bringing the petitioner's legal representatives on record was filed on 23rd July, 1979 and, this application remained pending and Har Govind Sharma respondent No. 5, also expired on 19th March, 1983 and the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased, Har Govind on record was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22nd January, 1985.
17. Shri B.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 22nd January, 1985, be recalled and the legal representative of deceased Har Govind be allowed to be brought on record His contention is that the application was dismissed only on the ground that it was barred by limitation, when the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable so far as the writ petitions are concerned He has pointed out that by virtue of Section 141, CPC, it has been made clear that the provisions of Order 22, CPC are not applicable in the writ petitions and, thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record for reviewing the order dated 22nd January, 1985. Further submission of Shri Agrawal is that the estate of the deceased, Har Govind, is sufficiently represented in the writ petition as his brother respondent No. 6 and his mother Prabhati Devi and other respondents No. 8 and 9, Smt, Manorma and Lal. who are his sisters, are already on record of the case. Shri Agrawal also submitted that his application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Raj Vaidhva Pt. Ram Dayalu was decided by this Court, after passing of the aforesaid order dated 22nd January, 1985 and in view of the fact that the rights of the present petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Pt. Ram Davalu Sharma accrued after they were made parties to the petition and thus the application for bringing the legal representatives of respondent No. 5 was well with in time. The application to bring the representatives of deceased petitioner Pt. Ram Dayalu Sharma was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12th May, 1987.
18. Shri Dalip Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that deceased Har Govind was not represented in any manner, and therefore, the writ petition stands abated as a whole because the legal representatives of Har Govind were not brought on record within the time prescribed.
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. As per the express provisions of Section 141, CPC, it is clear that it excludes the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a special and extra ordinary jurisdiction and when Section 141, CPC excludes the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution would, as a natural corollary, result in non-applicability of the provisions of Order 22, CPC. Further, it is true that on the death of the petitioner, Pt. Ram Dayalu Sharma, an application was moved by his L.Rs. to bring them on record and that application was well within time and when respondent No. 5 had died, this application remained pending. The application was decided on 12th May, 1987, i.e., much after the order dated 22nd January, 1985, was passed. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that unless the legal representatives of deceased petitioner Pt. Ram Dayalu were brought on record, they were not competent to move an application for bringing the legal representatives of respondent No. 5, Har Govind, on record. In this view of the matter, the application could not have been considered to be barred by limitation. Thus, what ever may be the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is fit case for recalling the order dated 22nd January, 1985, by which the application dated 3rd July, 1984, for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased, respondent No. 5, was dismissed, by order of this Court dated 22nd January, 1985. Notices were issued to the heirs and L.Rs. of the deceased, respondent No. 5. It is also on record that they were served and Shri Dalip Singh has appeared on their behalf and we heard on the merits of the case. As such, the office in the cause title may make necessary correction only by substituting the names of L.Rs. of deceased, respondent No. 5 as set out in Para 1 of the application dated 3rd July 1984.
20. We are of the opinion that on the aforesaid grounds, the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th December 1972 cannot be maintained as the error is apparent on the face of the record.
21. In the premises aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th December, 1972 and dated 12th December, 1973 and also the order of the Jagir Commissioner dated 29th December, 1968, by which-the predecessors of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to 9 were allowed annuity in respect of the State Grants villages (1) Sarna Doongar, (2) Chak Sarna Doongar, (3) Basdi, (4) Chak Basdi (5) land in villages Bhupendrapura, Jairampura and Mundia and direct that annuity in respect of the aforesaid villages and land be paid exclusively to the petitioner alone.
22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.