2010 Supreme(SC) 407

2010 (4) Supreme 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CJI, K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
State of Orissa — Plaintiff
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh — Defendant
Original Suit No. 11 of 1968
Decided on : 5-5-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
1. Procedural provisions which regulate the admissibility of civil suits before ordinary civil courts do not apply in the strict sense when Apex Court exercises its original jurisdiction to decide suits between States.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Article 131-Suit filed by plaintiff State of Orissa against the defendant State of Andhra Pradesh for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages, also referred to as ‘Borra Mutha’, formed part of the State of Orissa- Plaintiff sought administrative control over the disputed area since it alleged that defendant had committed trespass by interfering with administration of the disputed area after 1953 and more particularly after 1957- The fact that disputed area was part of the Jeypore (Impartible) Estate before notification of Orissa Order had not been contested by defendant-However, plaintiff had failed to establish that it had governed the disputed area prior to the constitution of State of Andhra in 1953, especially in light of the fact that disputed area was located at a considerable distance from inter-state boundary- The documents relied upon by plaintiff not established that the plaintiff had exercised administrative jurisdiction over the disputed area, since same was surrounded by villages that had undeniably been under the administrative control of the State of Andhra Pradesh- In fact, the plaintiff had admitted that till abolition of Jeypore Estate, it was not State of Orissa but the Zamindari which had collected land revenue from disputed area- A plain reading of Part I and II of the Orissa Order along with the First Schedule to the same, showed that the Order-in-Council did not intend to include the disputed area within the administrative control of State of Orissa- Plaintiff failed to establish that it had exercised administrative control over the disputed area after creation of Orissa in 1936- The defendant however produced documents which entailed that it was the State of Andhra Pradesh and its predecessor states which had been exercising the administrative jurisdiction over disputed area-The Orissa Order of 1936 did not intend to allocate disputed area to State of Orissa, even though it had been acquired by the Zamindar of the Jeypore (Impartible) Estate at a certain stage- After the formation of the province of Orissa, disputed area was part of the Vizagapatam District of erstwhile Madras Presidency and despite the contrary claims of plaintiff, disputed area was notified as part of Srungavarapukota assembly constituency in the State of Andhra Pradesh- Apart from that plaintiff could not establish that inhabitants of the disputed area recognized Oriya as their first language- Consequently prayer of plaintiff held unsustainable and liable to be dismissed-Suit dismissed. (Paras 22 to 27)

       Constitution of India,1950- Article 131-Suit filed by plaintiff State of Orissa against the defendant State of Andhra Pradesh for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages, also referred to as ‘Borra Mutha’, formed part of the State of Orissa- Defendant, in light of Article 131 and the proviso to same Article contended that Court lacked jurisdiction and the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction-Case of defendant that exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 131 was subject to other provisions of Constitution, and therefore Apex Court was barred from adjudicating delicate issues relating to state boundaries since Article 1(2) read with Entry 10 of First Schedule to the Constitution conclusively addresses this aspect-Apart from that defendant contended that as per Article 3 of the Constitution, only Union Parliament was competent to increase, diminish or alter the boundaries of any State in the manner provided-Since plaintiff had not sought any increase, alteration or diminishing of any area but only a declaration that disputed area comes under administrative jurisdiction of plaintiff state, hence held that Article 131 itself does not put fetters on this Court to decide this original suit and there would be no encroachment on the constitutionally sanctioned power of the Parliament to alter state boundaries- In respect of letter exchanged between Secretary to Government of Madras and the Chief Secretary to Government of Orissa, letter simply listed the names of the villages which would fall under jurisdiction of the Araku police station (which after creation of the Province of Orissa, remained under Chintalapalli circle of Vizagapatam district in the erstwhile Madras Presidency), and those which would fall under jurisdiction of the then Government of Orissa- After scrutinizing the contents of said letter, held that it could not be described as an ‘other similar instrument’ in the legal sense- The letter merely communicated the intentions of Madras Government at that point of time and it was not issued under the authority of a legislation or subordinate legislation- Neither could it be described as ‘a document of a formal character which was made under constitutional or statutory authority’- Hence held that original jurisdiction of Apex Court was not barred with reference to the proviso of Article 131 of the Constitution. (Paras 7 to 10)

       Constitution of India,1950- Article 131-Suit filed by plaintiff State of Orissa against the defendant State of Andhra Pradesh for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages, also referred to as ‘Borra Mutha’, formed part of the State of Orissa-Averment of defendant that since under Orissa Order, Governor General was contemplated as the final authority to decide any question with respect to an agency, taluk, village,estate, forest or any area in relation to the delimitation of boundary of the Province Orissa. Apex Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain present suit-Held dispute between both states germinated in 1957, which was well after independence and at that time position of the Governor General had become obsolete and Union Parliament was the supreme law making body in Country- The exclusion of judicial scrutiny in the Orissa Order which was notified in the pre-independence period could not be mechanically carried forward to the post-independence period-Hence it was held futile to invoke the authority of the Governor General as contemplated under the Orissa Order. (Para 12)

       Constitution of India,1950- Article 131-Civil Procedure Code,1908-Section 80-Suit filed by plaintiff State of Orissa against defendant State of Andhra Pradesh for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages, also referred to as ‘Borra Mutha’, formed part of State of Orissa-Averment of defendant that suit was liable to be dismissed as no notice was served upon the defendant by the plaintiff as required under section 80 of ‘CPC’ and that period of limitation prescribed for obtaining nature of relief sought by plaintiff was only three years from the date of accrual of the right, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963-However said averment of defendant was held unsustainable as it was evident that procedural provisions which regulate the admissibility of civil suits before ordinary civil courts do not apply in the strict sense when Apex Court exercises its original jurisdiction to decide suits between States. (Para 13)

       Facts of the Case :

       Suit was filed by plaintiff State of Orissa herein in the instant case against the defendant State of Andhra Pradesh for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages, also referred to as ‘Borra Mutha’, formed part of the State of Orissa. Plaintiff sought administrative control over the disputed area since it alleged that defendant had committed trespass by interfering with administration of the disputed area after 1953 and more particularly after 1957.

       Findings of the Court :

       The fact that disputed area was part of the Jeypore (Impartible) Estate before notification of Orissa Order had not been contested by defendant. However, plaintiff had failed to establish that it had governed the disputed area prior to the constitution of State of Andhra in 1953, especially in light of the fact that disputed area was located at a considerable distance from inter-state boundary. The documents relied upon by plaintiff not established that the plaintiff had exercised administrative jurisdiction over the disputed area, since same was surrounded by villages that had undeniably been under the administrative control of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In fact, the plaintiff had admitted that till abolition of Jeypore Estate, it was not State of Orissa but the Zamindari which had collected land revenue from disputed area. A plain reading of Part I and II of the Orissa Order along with the First Schedule to the same, showed that the Order-in-Council did not intend to include the disputed area within the administrative control of State of Orissa. Plaintiff failed to establish that it had exercised administrative control over the disputed area after creation of Orissa in 1936. The defendant however produced documents which entailed that it was the State of Andhra Pradesh and its predecessor states which had been exercising the administrative jurisdiction over disputed area.The Orissa Order of 1936 did not intend to allocate disputed area to State of Orissa, even though it had been acquired by the Zamindar of the Jeypore (Impartible) Estate at a certain stage. After the formation of the province of Orissa, disputed area was part of the Vizagapatam District of erstwhile Madras Presidency and despite the contrary claims of plaintiff, disputed area was notified as part of Srungavarapukota assembly constituency in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Apart from that plaintiff could not establish that inhabitants of the disputed area recognized Oriya as their first language. Consequently prayer of plaintiff was held unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. Suit was dismissed accordingly.