S. Roy, J.

All these applications arise out of a common order dated 3.3.1972 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa, exercising the power of the Special Land Acquisition Judge.

2. Some lands of village Karudih, police station Seraikela, District Singhbhum was acquired and award in respect of the same was drawn up in the name of Raja Adhya Pratap Singh Deo. The awardee being not satisfied with the amount of compensation filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming higher compensation. The Collector referred the same to the District Judge. During the pendency of the reference the awarded died on 22.12.1969 leaving behind his son, daughters and other legal representatives who are parties to these applications.

3. Sudhendra Narayan Singh Deo, one of the sons of the awardee, filed an application in the court below for substitution of the names of all the legal representatives of the deceased awardee, but subsequently Sudhendra Narayan Singh Deo filed an application for substitution or his name only on the ground that the other legal representatives were not taking any interest. His name was accordingly substituted. Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo, another son of the awardee filed an application in the court below that Sudhendra Narayan Singh had fraudulently got his name substituted. The prayer, therefore, was made to substitute all the legal representatives of the deceased awardee. This gave rise to Misc. case No. 12 of 1971. Similar application was filed by Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 21 of 1971. Sura Bhanu Singh Deo, a grand-son or the awardee filed another application for substituting the names or all the heirs instead of Subhendra Narayan Singh Deo alone. This gave rise to Misc. Case No. 22 of 1971. Shata Bhanu Pratap Singh Deo, the eldest son or the awardee filed an application on the ground that Sudhendra Narayan Singh Deo had fraudulently got his name substituted in place of the deceased awardee. He contended that as per terms of the agreement of merger of Seraikella state in the Dominion of India the property acquired was part of the private properties or Raja Aditya Pratap Singh Deo. In terms of the merger agreement, the President of India bas been pleased to recognise Shata Bhanu Pratap Singh Deo as the Raja of Seraikella, that is the next ruler alter the death of Raja Aditya Pratap Singh Deo. He, therefore, was solely entitled to the compensation. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1972. By order dated 3rd March, 1972 the Court below held that Raja Shata Bhanu Pratap Singh Deo was not exclusively entitled to the compensation. It further found that the names of all the legal representatives of the deceased awardee should be substituted. Raja Shata Bhanu Pratap Singh Deo has challenged the legality of the order in all these four applications.

4. Mr. K. D. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 551 of 1972 submitted that there is no dispute that before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act"), Raja family of Seraikella was governed by the rule of lineal male primogeniture. The estate of Raja was impartible. By an agreement dated 15th December 1947 entered into by and between the Governor General of India and Raja of Seraikella State, the Seraikella State ceded to the Dominion of India and the Dominion Government got full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and power for and in relation to governance of the State and the administration of the State was transferred to the Dominion Government from Ist January 1948. He submitted that although by the Act, the rule of devolution of properties to the eldest male member of the eldest male line was done away with but section 5 of the Act, makes specific provision that the Act, shall not apply to succession in respect of certain properties. Reliance was placed on sub-section (II) of Section 5 of t