Judgment

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave arises from a suit filed by the appellant in a representative capacity (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2008) against the State of Jammu & Kashmir praying for a declaration that the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act XVII of 2007 (hereinafter called the Act) is void, inoperative and ultra vires of Yuvaraj Karan Singh who enacted it and for a further declaration that the appellant was entitled to retain the peaceful possession of his lands.

2. It appears that the validity of the Act was similarly challenged by Maghar Singh by his suit filed on the Original Side of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (Civil Suit No. 59 of 2007); and Mr. Justice Kilam who had heard the said suit had rejected the plaintiff s contentions and held that the Act was valid.

3. When the appellant s suit came for trial before the District Court it was conceded on his behalf that the points raised by him against the validity of the Act had been decided by Mr. Justice Kilam and that, in view of the said decision, the appellant could not usefully urge anything more before the District Court. The learned District Judge who was bound by the decision of Mr. Justice Kilam applied it to the suit before him and held that the Act was valid and that the appellant was not entitled to the two declarations claimed by him. In the result the appellants suit was dismissed,

4. Against this decree the appellant preferred an appeal in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2009)* Maghar Singh whose suit had been dismissed by Mr. Justice Kilam had also preferred an appeal (No. 29 of 2008) before the High Court. The two appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court which held that the Act was valid and that the appellants were not entitled to any declaration claimed by them. Both the appeals were accordingly dismissed.

* See A. I. R. 1953 J. & K. 25.

5. Against the decree passed by the High Court dismissing his appeal the appellant applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court. The said application was however, dismissed. Thereupon, the appellant applied for, and obtained, special leave to appeal to this Court.

6. In dealing with this appeal it is necessary to narrate in some detail the events which took place in Kashmir and the constitutional changes which followed them in order to appreciate fully the background of the impugned legislation. A clear understanding of this background will help us to deal with the appellant s case in its proper perspective. In 1925 Maharaja Hari Singh succeeded Maharaja Pratap Singh as the Ruler of Kashmir. It appears that for some time prior to 1934 there was public agitation in Kashmir for the establishment of responsible government. Presumably as a sequel to the said agitation Maharaja Hari Singh issued Regulation 1 of 199l (1934). The Regulation began with the statement of policy that it was the declared intention of the Maharaja to provide for the association of his subjects in the matter of legislation and the administration of the State and that it was in pursuance of the said intention that the Regulation was being promulgated. This Regulation consisted of 46 sections which dealt with the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the Maharaja himself referred to the subjects which should be reserved from the operation of the Regulation, made provision or the constitution of the legislature of the State, conferred authority on the Council to make rules for specified purposes and referred to other relevant and material topics. It is relevant to refer to only two sections of this Regulation. Section 3 provides that all powers legislative, executive and judicial in relation to the State and its government are hereby declared to be, & to have been always, inherent in and possessed and retained by His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and nothing contained in the Regulation shall affect or be deemed to have affected