( 1 ) THIS application under Article 22g of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the Board of Revenue has been made in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) ONE Draupadibai was the last holder of certain Khasra numbers in Bhumiswami rights. She died in June 1961. On her death the Tahsilder, Gadarwarn, ordered mutation of the land in favour of the respondent No. 1 Biharilal. The petitioners then preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadanvara, which was rejected. A second appeal preferred by them before the Commissioner. Jabalpur division, may the same fate. Thereafter, they filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed.

( 3 ) DRAUPADIBAI had a sister Chironjibai who predeceased her and the petitioners shanti Bai and Sushila Bai are the daughters of Chironjibai. The third petitioner is a daughter of Draupadibai's predeceased son Badriprasad. The respondent No. 1 biharilal is a cousin of Draupadibai's father Ganesh Datta, being the son of Ganesh datta's uncle Goreyalal. The mutation was done by the Tahsildar in accordance with Section 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), as it stood at the time of the death of Draupadibai when the succession to the lands opened. After the death of Draupadibai and even after the Tahsildar passed the order of mutation on 29th November 1961, Section 164 of the Code was amended by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Second amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Amending Act ). Section 2 of the amending Act substituted the following provision in place of the order of succession given in Section 164 of the devolution of the interest of a Bhumiswami on his death: "164. Devolution. Subject to his personal law the interest of a bhumiswami shall, on his death, pass by inheritance, survivorship or bequest, as the case may be. " the petitioners contended before the Commissioner as well as the Board of revenue that the succession to the Bhumiswami lands left by Draupadibai should be in accordance with the new Section 164 of the Code. This contention was rejected by the Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue. They now seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Tahsildar as upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

( 4 ) THE sole question that arises for determination in this case is whether the new section 164 of the Code is retrospective in its operation. The general principle about retrospective operation of statutes is well settled. It is that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute or a section of it so as. to impair an existing right or obligation unless the statute so provides either expressly or by necessary intendment or unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. Now, it cannot be denied that the new section 164 substitutes for the order of succession given in the old Section 164 the rule that the interest of a Bhumiswami shall, on his death, pass by inheritance, survivorship or bequest, as the case may be. Thus, the new rule if given a retrospective operation would affect the right and interest of those persons in whose favour succession opened out by the death of a Bhumiswami before the new Section 164 came into force on 8th December 1961. There are no express words either in the Amending Act or in the new Section 164 giving that provision a retrospective effect. It is noteworthy that the Amending Act gave retrospective effect to the amendments made by it in Section 251 of the Code by expressly providing in Section 6 of the Amending Act that the amendments made in Section 251 shall be deemed to have come into force on 2nd October 1959. No such provision giving a retrospective operation to the new Section 164 was inserted in the Amending Act.

( 5 ) SHRI Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however,