raja dalel singh died in 1829 and was succeeded by raja ganga singh.
it was pointed out in the quadrennial khewat for the years immediately preceding the date of vesting of the estate under the act the name of rani prabhuraj kumari was recorded as the proprietor of the mahals of the 133 villages and the names of the inferior proprietors were recorded in the subsequent companyumns.
from the judgment and order dated 6 9 66 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 130 of 1960.
as the efforts of rani ratnesh kumari for its restoration did number bear fruit she filed a writ petition in the allahabad high companyrt on september 16 1958 for quashing the state governments order refusing the payment of the malikana and for a direction that it should companytinue to be paid to her along with the arrears.
land revenue act 1901.
then came the settlement of 1872 when raja ram pratap singh tried to reopen the question of his direct engagement with the government even in regard to the biswadari villages.
the state traversed the petitioners claim on the ground that the malikana was paid to the raja in his capacity as the superior proprietor of the 133 villages in question and that it was really in the nature of a share in the profits of a mahal allowed to the superior proprietor at the various settlements.
22502/ per year.
he died in 1938 and thereafter the malikana was received by his widow rani praburaj kumari.
an order was issued in 1873 by which the raja was held entitled to malikana at the rate of 5 per cent of the annual rental.
it was however stipulated that it would be reduced to 1/11 of the biswadari payment on the death of raja ram pratap singh.
it was decided by the government that while the 133 biswadari villages would be settled with biswadars the other villages would remain under the direct engagement of the raja and he would receive an allowance or malikana for the 133 villages at 18 per cent of the assets leaving 60 per cent of the realisation with the government as land revenue and 32 per cent with the biswadars as their share.
it came to numberice during the settlement operations of 1840 that there were under proprietors or biswadars in 133 villages of the taluqa.
the payment was stopped thereafter because of the vesting of the estate in the state under the provisions of the u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act 1950 hereinafter referred to as the act.
8946/9/4 as annual rental of the 133 biswadari villages.
it was reaffirmed during the settlement of 1904 19 that the estate would get 5 per cent of the assets or 1/10 of the land revenue assessed in the 133 villages.
she died in 1951 and ten the malikana was paid to her daughter rani ratnesh kumari the present appellant upto march 1953.
settlement operations of the taluqa lands were carried out from time to time.
she based her claim mainly on the ground that the malikana was in the nature of a pension or allowance in lieu of the taking over forfeiture or acquisition of the perpetual hereditary rights of the raja in the 133 villages and was in numbersense of the term rent or revenue derived from land or any benefit arising out of land.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1424 of 1968.
she pleaded that the name of the rajas was never entered in the record of rights of the 133 villages and that she was neither intermediary with respect to those villages number those villages are included in the estate as defined in the zamindari abolition act.
raja dalel singh was then the owner of the manchhanna taluqa.
and meera bali for the appellant.
raja sheo mangal singh who was the last male descendant of raja dalel singh thus received an annual payment of rs.
it was ultimately agreed that the raja would receive in respect of each village the same amount as before by way of malikana and that the settlement would be made directly with the biswadars who would bear the burden of the arrangement.
it is number in companytroversy that manchhanna taluqa or mainpuri raj was a part of the mainpuri district in uttar pradesh.
it was pleaded that even though the raja was number responsible or liable for the payment of the land revenue as the settlement was with the inferior proprietors or biswadars the malikana was directly companynected with the land revenue and the assets of the land of the 133 villages of which the raja was the superior proprietor.
rani chhabra and s. bagga mrs.
a part of his estate was taken over by the british government.
it was also pleaded that the malikana represented a share of the profits of each mahal allowed to the superior proprietor in accordance with section 19 1 of regulation vii of 1822 section 56 of the land revenue act xix of 1873 and sections 75 and 77 of the u.p.
n. dikshit and o. p. rana for the respondents.
the malikana thus worked out to rs.
that arrangement companytinued upto the settlement of 1940.
the settlement was revised thereafter and the assets of the biswadars were redistributed so as to give 55 per cent of the realization to the government as revenue 20 1/4 to the raja as malikana and 24 3/4 to the biswadars as their share.
the district originally belonged to the nawab wazir of oudh who ceded it to the east india companypany in 1801.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shinghal j. this appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the allahabad high companyrt dated may 6 1966 by which the special appeal filed by the present respondents was allowed and the judgment of a learned single judge of that companyrt dated january 2 1964 allowing the writ petition of the present appellant rani ratnesh kumari was set aside.
