SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(6th April 1955)
B.K. MUKHERJEA C.J.I., S.R. DAS, BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, AND JAFER IMAM JJ.
Maharaj Umeg Singh and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of Bombay and other, Respondents.
Petn. Nos. 337 to 349, 364 to 366, 481 and 690 of 1954.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. L. Gauba, Senior Advocate (Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, with him), in Petns. Nos. 337 to 343 and 481 of 1954; Mr. K. L. Gauba, senior Advocate (Mr. S. D. Sekhri, Advocate, with him); in Petns. Nos. 344, 446 and 349 of 1954; Mr. K. L. Gauba, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Patnaik and Mr. S. D. Sekhri, Advocates, with him) in Petn. No. 345 of 1954; Mr. K. L. Gauba, Senior Advocate, Mr. N. C. Chakravarty and Mr. S. D. Sekhri, Advocates, with him), in Petn. No. 347 of 1954; Mr. K. L. Gauba, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. Moropant and Mr. S. D. Sekhri, Advocates, with him), in Petn: No. 348 of 1954; Mr. Rajni Patel and Mr. M. S. K. Sastri, Advocates, in Petn. No. 364 of 1954; Mr. Rajni Patel and Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocates, in Petns. Nos. 365 and 366 of 1954; Mr. J. B. Dadachanji and Mr. Rajinder Narain, Advocates, in Petn. No. 690 of 1954, for Petitioners; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, for India; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General, for India; (Mr. P. A. Mehta and Mr. R. H. Dhebar for Mr. P. G. Gokhale with them), for Respondents.
Judgment
BHAGWATI J. : These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution are directed against the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953, Bombay Act XXXIX of 1954 which was passed by the Legislature of the State of Bombay to abolish jagirs in the merged territories and merged areas in the State of Bombay. The Bill was passed by the Legislature on the 22nd September 1953 and received the sanction of the Upper House on the 26th September 1953. The President gave his assent to it on the 13th June 1954 and by a notification dated the 15th July 1954 it was brought into effect from the lst August 1954. In view of the notification the Petitioners filed these petitions on the 30th July 1954 challenging the vires of the Act (hereinafter called the impugned Act) and asking for the issue of appropriate writs restraining inter alia the State of Bombay from giving effect to its provisions. On applications made to this Court on the 31st July 1954 the operation of the impugned Act was stayed pending the hearing and final disposal of the petitions.
2. The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 337, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 349 of 1954 are relations of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Idar. The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 338 and 342 of 1954 are relations of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Chhota Udaipur. The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 339 and 341 are relations of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Devgad Baria. The Petitioner in Petition No. 343 of 1954 is a relation of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Rajpipla. The Petitioners in Petition No. 340) of 1954 are jagirdars of the erstwhile State of Rajpipla. The Petitioner in Petition No. 348 of 1954 is a relation of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Bansda. The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 365 and 366 of 1954 are jagirdars of the erstwhile States of ldar and Lunawada respectively.
The Petitioner in Petition No. 481 of 1954 is a relation of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Mohanpur. The Petitioners in Petition No. 690 of 1954 are the holders of personal Inams from the erstwhile State of Rajpipla. All the petitioners except the last claim to be hereditary jagirdars under grants made by the respective States for the maintenance of themselves, their families and dependants and hold the jagirs and jiwai jagirs . The holders of the personal Inams in Petition No. 690 of 1954 used to pay salami to the erstwhile State of Rajpipla and are included within the definition of "jagirdar" being holder of jagir villages within the meaning of the definition thereof contained in the impugned Act.
3. The Petitioner in Petition No. 364 of 1954 claims to be the owner of 60 villages in the patta or territory of Moti Moree comprised in the erstwhile State of ldar as the Bhumia or under-lord and contends that his holding does not fall within the definition of jagir as given in the impugned Act and that therefore in any event the State of Bombay is not entitled to enforce the impugned Act against him.
4. All these Petitioners have challenged the vires of the impugned Act mainly relying upon the agreement of merger entered into by the Rulers of the respective States with the Dominion of India on or about the 19th March 1948 and the collateral letters of guarantee passed by the Ministry of States in their favour on subsequent dates, the contents of which were regarded as part of the merger agreements entered into by them with the Dominion of India.
5. The merger agreements were in the form given a Appendix XIII to the White Paper at page 183:
"FORM OF MERGER AGREEMENT
SIGNED BY RULERS OF, GUJARAT
AND DECCAN STATES AGREEMENT MADE THIS
day of between the Governor- General of India and the of.
Whereas in the immediate interests of the State and its people, the of is desirous that the administration of the State should be integrated as early as possible with that of the Province of in such manner as the Government of the Dominion of India may think fit;
It is hereby agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
T
Referred to : State of Seraikella and others v. Union of India and another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.