The word 'may' in Section 5 (3) of the Revocation Act should not be construed as 'shall' or 'must', and the State Government has the discretion to make a grant of money or pension to persons adversely affected by the Revocation Act.

( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 133 of 1956. Both these cases arise under the G. P. and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemption Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Revocation Act. The facts alleged are as below.

( 2 ) M. P. No. 325 of 1955: The petitioners are descendants of Ramchandrarao son of Ballal, who had a brother by name Naro alias Narayanrao. The two brothers took service under the Peshwas about the year 1744 A. D. and subjugated the country west of the Ganjal, which was then called the Handia Sarkar. In reward for their services, they received in 1751 A. D. a hereditary office of Sir Mandloi and Sir kanungo in the Sirkars of Bijagarh and Handia, and the title of Bhuskute was also conferred on diem for having cleared the jungles and cultivated waste lands (Hoshangabad Gazette and pp. 97-98, Annexure XIV ). In the same year, they were granted 5 villages in Nimar and 2 villages in hoshangabad, districts, rent-free in perpetuity. Similar grants of other villages were also made in the years 1754, 1759 and 1767 A. D. In the year 1777 A. D. the Peshwas made a further grant of Jagir rights in village Timarni in Hoshangtbad district along with the fort situate therein. Similar rights in 2 more villages in hoshan gabad district along with the fort situate therein; Similar rights in 2 more villages in Hoshangabad district were also conferred on them in the year 1800 A. D.

( 3 ) WITH the disintegration of the power of the Peshwas, Handia and Nimar tracts were claimed by the Scindias who held suzerainty over them by virtue of a treaty with the British Government, dated 13-1-1844. Later, by another treaty dated 1212-1860, Maharaja Scindia of Gwalior transferred the two districts of Handia and nimar to the British Government in exchange for the territory to the north of barbuda. In Article 3 (4) of the treaty, it was agreed mutually that each government shall give to its new subjects Sanads in perpetuity for the rent-free lands, the Jagirs, the perquisites and the hereditary claims (Huqs and Wuttuns)which they enjoyed under the other Government. The rent-free grants to the bhuskutes were accordingly recognized and maintained by the British government.

( 4 ) UNDER the terms of the Revocation Act, the State Government withdrew the petitioners' privilege of exemption from liability to pay land revenue and by an order dated 26-4-1955 rejected their claim for grant of pension. This petition has been filed for quashing the said order and for directing the State Government to award a grant of money or pension under Section 5 (3) of the Revocation Act.

( 5 ) L. P. A. No. 133 of 1956: The petitioner is a descendant of Raja Jatwa Shah, who was Raja of Debgarh till the year 1602 A. D. In the year 1809 ,a. D. mouza bamhangaon Kalan and Randbal in the tahsil and district Hoshangabad were granted as Jagir for the maintenance of Raja Keshri Shah, a descendant of Raja jatwa Shah, by Raja Raghuji Bhonsle of Nagpur. He continued in possession of the jagir till the time of cession when it was confirmed by the British Government in 1829 A. D. for his life. In the year 1844 A. D. the British Government confirmed the grant in favour of his son Raja Mangal Shah for his life. On 6-10-1860 the Governor-General in Council sanctioned the perpetual maintenance of the muafi to Raja Kamran Shah, son of raja Mangal Shah, and his male heirs in perpetuity. On the death of Raja Kamran shah in the year 1923 A. D. the muafi devolved on his grandson Raja Mubarak shah, on whose demise the petitioner, his brother, succeeded to his right, title and interest in the year 1938 A. D,

( 6 ) ON the Revocation Act coming into force, the muafi was resumed by the State government. Thereupon the petitioner made an application to the Deputy commissioner, Hoshangabad, for a grant of money or pension for the suitable maintenance of his family. The State Government rejected his request by an order dated 13-5-1955. He accordingly moved this