Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an appci-cation by Thakur Bishan Singh, Jagirdar of village Nimbol, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus or any other appropriate writ may be issued to the State of Rajasthan, and the order made by the State under sec. 7 (1) (b) of the Marwar Court of Wards Act be quashed.

2. The applicants case is that in November, 1948, the Government of the former State of Jodhpur placed the Jagir of Nimbol under the management of the Court of Wards on certain grounds. Representations were made against that order, and eventually in September, 1950, the Government of Rajasthan set aside the order of the Government of the former State of Jodhpur, and released the Thikana from the management of the Court of Wards, and handed back the possession to the applicant. Thereafter, on the 18th of June, 1951 the Government of Rajasthan again took over the management of the estate under sec. 7 (1) (b) of the Marwar Court of Wards Act. The contention of the applicant is that the order of the Government of Rajasthan under sec. 7 (1) (b) is in excess of their jurisdiction, and should, therefore, be set aside.

3. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State, and it is contended that the order in question is within the jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan, and there has been no exceeding of their jurisdiction.

4. The Marwar Court of Wards Act provides under sec. 7 (1) the conditions under which Jagirdars shall be deemed to be disqualified to manage their own property. We are concerned in this case, with sec. 7 (1) (b) (ii), as the learned Government Advocate has based his case on that section. It reads as follows :—

"Jagirdars shall be deemed to be disqualified to manage their own property when they are persons declared by the Darbar to be in-capable of managing, or unfitted to manage, their own property owing to their having been convicted of a non-bailable offence and being unfitted by vicious habits or bad character for the management of their own property."

The letter of the Revenue Secretary, which is being assailed and on the basis of which superintendence was assumed by the Court of Wards is in these terms :

"I am directed to say that after the release of Thikana Nimbol the Thakur has attempted to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from giving evidence against his sons and other persons of the Thikana and in the event of unfavourable evi-dence he threatens them with disastrous consequences. There is a dispute between the Thakur and his public in the matter of recovery of Kharda cess, and the Thakur encourages his sons and his Kamdar etc. to do such criminal acts. As a sequence to which a criminal case for cutting the nose of one Shri Loon Karan against them is being tried in the Sessions Court. It is, therefore, quite clear that the Thakur of Nimbol could not prevent his sons and Kamdar from doing violent action and this shows the incapability of the Thakur to manage his Thikana afairs in accordance with the provisions of sec. 7 (b), Marwar Court of Wards Act, and consequently the Thakur deserves to be declared incapable to manage his Thikana affairs. Besides, the Thakur exerts undue influence in the proper discharge of justice and administration. It is, therefore, necessary that Thikana Nimbol may be taken under the superintendence of Court of Wards and the Thakur be declared incapable to manage his Thikana affairs."

5. The applicant wanted to show that the recitals in this order were incorrect; but, in our opinion, it is not the function of the Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the recitals contained in the order. All that the Court has to see is whether the order sought to be challenged is valid on those recitals, accepting them on their face value.

6. Learned counsel, however, argues that in order that sec. 7(1) (b) (ii) may apply, it is not enough that a jagirdar should be unfitted by vicious habits or bad character for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document