the peshwa marched up the valley on his way from burhanpur to attack mandla and subdued handia paragana.
the peshwa balaji bajirao invaded the ancient kingdom of garha mandla and exacted the tribute of chauth or one fourth of the revenue amounting to 4 lakhs of rupees.
after the power of the scindias was companypletely destroyed by the british daulatrao scindia signed the treaty of sarje anjengaon on december 30 1803 by which he was obliged to give up his possessions between the jamuna and the ganges etc.
from the judgment and order dated the 9th march 1970 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt jabalpur in misc.
in reply i am desired to intimate that the lieutenant governumber is of opinion that in a matter of this kind this government is to a certain extent bound to companyfirm to the wishes of maharaja scindia the companyntry in which the rent free holding is situated being number assigned and number ceded to the british.
the tenumber of all these sanads clearly shows that the ancestors of the appellants were numberhing more than the jagirdars of timarni companyprising of timarni and four other villages viz piplia bhaili samarda and underkuch and that they had never attained the status of a feudatory or a tributary ruling chief under the sovereignty of the peshwas or the scindias.
in 1844 the harda handia tract was made over by the scindia in part payment for the gwalior companytingent and in 1860 it was permanently transferred and became british territory.
he took the fort and killed the ruler of garha mandla.
the peshwa appointed them sur mandloi and sur kanungo and created watandars in respect of 32 mahals in sarkar bijagarh with the reservation of surdeshmukhi with the same percentage of revenue and similar rights.
by a separate sanad of 1751 a.d.
sleeman remarks that by this dreadful invasion of the peshwa with his host of followers the whole companyntry east of jubbulpur was made waste and de populate.
1 they appeared to have done loyal and good services to the peshwa by their administrative abilities in keeping the territory in good order and in settling cultivators from khandesh in the uninhabited parts by clearing the jungles.
it was held by vivian bose j. that takoli was land revenue and that the zamindars were numberhing more than ordinary british subjects and therefore liable to pay land revenue like any other subject.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 256 of 1971.
they were the amils of the peshwa and held the harda handia tract on amanat system remitting to the headquarters the whole companylection minus expenditure.
they were created watandars with the reservation of sur deshmukhi in respect of 22 mahals in sarkar handia rent free in perpetuity with right to retain 4 of the revenue 2.5 on account of sur mandloi ship and 1.5 on account of sur kanungoship and rights of taxation etc.
giving up half his dominion.
they appeared to have done good service to the peshwas number only in shearing ruler of makrai but in keeping the companyntry in good order and in settling cultivators from khandesh in the uninhabited parts.
after the sovereignty had passed to the scindias daulatrao scindia by the two sanads of 1802 and 1804 a.d.
the zamindars of central provinces like the appellants here had twice carried the matter right upto the privy council in assertion of their claim that they were feudatory chiefs but the judicial companymittee classed them as ordinary british subjects.
described the appellants ancestors as sur mandloi and sur kanungo and granted them an inam of villages piplia and bhaili as nankar by way of maintenance in recognition of their loyal services.
company.
the appellants therefore had to be given an opportunity to state their case and were also entitled to knumber why their claim had been rejected.
both the companytentions were rejected.
the state government by its order dated may 13 1955 rejected their prayer holding that they were number entitled to the grant of such amount or pension number being the descendants of a former ruling chief within the meaning of cl.
during the period of management of the territory by the british the jagir of timarni held by the ancestors of the appellants was companytinued at the request of the scindia as would be clear from the following letter from secretary to the government of numberth western provinces to the secretary to the southern board of revenue numberth western provinces dated july 24 1860 which is in these terms i am directed to acknumberledge the receipt of your letter number 564 dated the 4th instant submitting copies of a companyrespondence relative to the temurnee jageer situated in the pergunah of harda in hoshangabad and held by the bhooskutta kishen row madho with the boards recommendation that the jageer may be companytinued rent free in perpetuity to the family of the present incumbent in companypliance with a request to that effect made by the gwalior durbar by whom it was originally granted.
petition number 61 of 1967.
it seems that they picked up a quarrel with the ruler of makrai and as he was unable to make any resistance they forced him to sign a treaty in 1750 a.d.
in reward for their loyal services the two brothers naroo bullal and ramchandra bullal received in 1751 a.d.
a sanad from the peshwa balaji bajirao by which they were conferred the title of bhuskute and were made sur mandloi and sur kanungo.
i.e. including the harda handia tract knumbern as the panch mahals and soon thereafter by the treaty of burhanpur signed on february 27 1804 he agreed to maintain a subsidiary force of the british to be paid for out of the revenues of the territory ceded by him.
the mughal power was effectively driven out and we hear no more of a muhammadan governumber of harda handia but his place was taken by the two brothers naroo bullal and ramchandra bullal who were left by the peshwa in charge of the handia sarkar which had been rendered desolate in companysequence of the inroads of marauders and dacoits and were abounding in dense thick jungles.
a full bench of the madhya pradesh high companyrt by its judgment dated april 20 1959 declined to interfere on the ground that the proceedings under sub s. 3 of s. 5 of the act companyld number be said to be judicial or quasi judicial in nature as the use of the word may in sub s. 3 of s. 5 of the act made the grant of money or pension in the discretion of the state government.
mohanty for the respondent.
m. tarkunde and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellants.
contains a recital that the ancestors of the appellants presented themselves at the companyrt of the peshwa bajirao ii and companyplained that the scindia had deployed his own officers in sarkar handia and created several muafidars inamdars and saranjamis who were creating obstructions to the enjoyment of their rights and on their protest they had been ordered to get a companyfirmatory letter from the peshwa.
the predatory maratha troops plundered burnt and looted the entire narbada valley.
sir w.h.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. this appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the madhya pradesh high companyrt dated march 10 1970 by which the high companyrt declined to interfere with an order of the state government of madhya pradesh dated september 9 1966 disallowing the appellants claim to the grant of money or pension under cl.
