1. Challenge to the constitutionality of the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act regarding the acquisition of lands held by former chiefs claiming sovereign status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 375
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., J.C.Shah, K.C.Das Gupta, K.N.Wanchoo, P.B.Gajendragadkar, JJ.
Biswambhar Singh
Versus
State Of Orissa
Case No. : 112 , 113 of 1960
Date of Decision : 11/16/62
Advocates Appeared: Agarwala O.B. : Chatterjee N.C. : Dhebar R.H. : Gopalakrishnan E. : Maheshwari B.P. : Mohanty M.S. : Sinha A.N.
Advocates:
A.N.SINHA, B.P.MAHESHVARI, E.GOPALAKRISHNAN, M.S.MOHANTY, N.C.CHATTERJI, O.B.AGRAWAL, R.H.Dhebar
A.N.SINHA, B.P.MAHESHVARI, E.GOPALAKRISHNAN, M.S.MOHANTY, N.C.CHATTERJI, O.B.AGRAWAL, R.H.Dhebar
Sovereignty can be lost through a gradual historical process of submission and administrative takeover, not just by conquest or treaty. Once sovereign status is extinguished, landholders standing between the state and the cultivating tenant are classified as intermediaries subject to land acquisition laws.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 31A(2)(a), 226, 254(1) - State Act on Estates Abolition - Sections 2(g) and 2(h) - Definition of 'estate' and 'intermediary' - Acquisition of land - Sovereign status vs. intermediary status.
(B) Act of State - Loss of sovereignty - Sovereignty may be acquired through a historical process spread over many years, not necessarily by conquest or treaty - If administrative control and legislative power are exercised by another ruler, the former sovereign becomes a subject. (Para 6)
(C) Intermediary - A person who holds an interest in land between the state and the cultivating tenant is an intermediary - If sovereign status is lost, the holder of the land is an intermediary regardless of the historical nature of payments. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
Two landholders challenged the acquisition of their lands under a state act abolishing estates. They claimed to be sovereign rulers and argued that the payments made to a previous suzerain were tributes, not land revenue. The state had amended the act to broaden the definitions of 'estate' and 'intermediary' to ensure such lands could be acquired.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the landholders had lost their sovereign powers through a historical process and had become subjects of a larger state before that state merged with the province. Consequently, they were intermediaries holding land between the state and the cultivators.
Issues: Whether the landholders maintained sovereign status or were intermediaries under the amended definitions of the state act, and whether the payments made were tributes or land revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Sovereignty can be lost through a gradual historical process where legislative and administrative control pass to another ruler. Once sovereignty is lost, the landholder is an intermediary if they stand between the state and the cultivating tenant.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the landholders maintained sovereign status such that they fall outside the definitions of estate and intermediary under the Amending Act. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Sovereignty can be lost through a gradual historical process of submission and administrative control, rendering the holders subjects and intermediaries rather than sovereign rulers. (Para 6 )
4. Where landholders have lost sovereign powers through historical process and submission to another ruler, they are intermediaries subject to land acquisition laws. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs. (Para 8 )
6. How is the loss of sovereign power determined in the context of land acquisition?
Sovereignty may be lost not only by conquest or treaty but through a gradual historical process where a territory submits to another ruler's laws and administrative control, rendering the former rulers subjects. (Para 6 )
7. What constitutes an intermediary under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act?
An intermediary is any person or entity holding an interest in land situated between the state at the apex and the cultivating raiyat at the base. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights justiciable in Indian courts?
The court held that the alleged violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, is not justiciable. (Para 2 )
B.P.SINHA, J.
(1) THESE two appeals on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Orissa raise the question of the constitutionality of the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act (Orissa XVII of 1954) amending the main Act, the Orissa Estates Abolition.Act (Orissa I of 1952), which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act. As the questions raised in the High Court and in this Court are the same in both the appeals, they have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both.
(2) IT appears that the two Zamindars of Hemgir and Sarpgarh moved the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus against the State of Orissa and the Collector of Sundargarh, which is a district formed after Merger. Previously it was part of the feudatory State of Gangpur. The two petitioners Zamindaries covered about 540 sq. miles between them. The petitioners in the High Court in their petitions, claimed a sovereign status and referred to a mass of historical literature, including references to the Imperial Gazetteer by W. W. Hunter, Sir Richard Temples -Treaties, Zamindaries, Chieftainships in Central Provinces, and other official records. The High Court has found that the remote ancestors of the petitioners were Bhuiyan Chiefs, who were the original settlers and who had in course of time become the chieftains of the place, exercising sovereign powers. Subsequently, when the Rajput Rulers of Gangpur settled in that area, these Bhuiyan Chiefs accepted the suzerainty of those Rulers and gradually surrendered their sovereign rights. They used to pay annual "Takolis^, which they originally paid as tributes to the suzerain, but which later became indistinguishable from land revenue. Their status vis-a-vis the Ruler of Gangpur remained undefined, though in successive revenue settlements made by the Ruler of Gangpur, with the concurrence of the then political Department, of the Government- of India, they were described as Zemindars, and Khewats were issued to them. The High Court, on an examination of the relevant evidence, came to the conclusion that these Zamindars ultimately lost all vestiges of their sovereignty, and as a result of historical process became subject to the laws promulgated by the Ruler of Gangpur, and that when the Ruler merged his State with the State of Orissa, with effect from January 1, 1948, these petitioners were no better than mere subjects and had absolutely no claims to sovereign power. The High Court also found that considerable forest areas formed part of the land which belonged to them, and that these forest areas had no separate and distinct existence in the eye of law. The High Court repelled the petitioners contention that their lands were not estates as denned in Art. 31A(2)(a) of the Constitution. The High Court also rejected the contention that the Act, in so far as it applies to the petitioners, was discriminatory. The High Court thus held that Art. 14 of the Constitution had not been contravened. It also held that the Act was not void under Art. 254(1) of the Constitution. It further held that the so called violation of Art. 17(2) of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" promulgated by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, to which India was a party, was not justiciable. In that view of the matter, these petitions were dismissed and both parties were directed to bear their own costs. The petitioner, in each case, moved the High Court and obtained the necessary certificate for coming up in appeal to this Court. That is how these appeals are before us.
(3) THIS is not the first time that these petitioners, now appellants in this Court, have figured as litigants in the High Court and in this Court in respect of their respective lands. When the Orissa Act I of 1952, the main Act, was enacted and came into force in February 1952, the Government of Orissa notified the petitioners property also as coming wi
