the appellant herein filed on April 10, 1964, a review petition, which was subsequently amended on December 21, 1965, for a review of the said order on the ground that there was an error on the face of it.
It was companytended that the pension was a political pension and number a personal inam and companysequently, the pension did number fall within the definition of personal inam in the Inam Abolition Act and companyld number be abolished thereunder.
500/ p.m. as and by way of political pension with effect from August 1, 1953.
He was paid such a pension till July 31, 1953 at the rate of Rs.
On the companying into force of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1953 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act , from August 1, 1953, payment of this pension was discontinued.
500/ with effect from August 1, 1953.
By the same order in view of the statement made by the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent State to the effect, that the pension which was being paid to the petitioner was number a. personal inam and as such, companyld number be abolished under the Act, the High Court passed an order directing the respondents, their servants and agents to pay to the writ applicant and his heirs the sum of Fs.
570 of 1964 for substituting the legal heirs of the deceased writ applicant in the main petition.
500/ per month.
The appellants also filed an application No.
Subsequently, at the instance of writ applicant, the High Court by its order, dated February 27, 1963, deleted the words in perpetuity at the end the prayer Clause A tin the writ application.
Bapumiya thereupon filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction ordering the Respondent State and its officers to pay to the petitioner and his heirs in perpetuity, a sum of Rs.
Being aggrieved by this order, dated February 27, 1963.,
It was stated that the appellant had companymitted a bona fide mistake due to the ignorance of the authorities in number taking up the defence that the aforesaid political pension stood resumed under the provisions of the Bombay Saramjams Jahagirs and others Inams of Political Nature Resumption Rules, 1952 made in exercise of powers under the Bombay Rent Free Estate Act, 1852 and the Land Revenue Acts 1 and 2 of 1863 with effect from 1952.
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal on certificate granted under Article 133 1 b of the Constitution is directed against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court.
The facts are One Sardar Shermia Bapumia was the holder of what he alleged to be political pension.
