Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
WANCHOO, DAVE, JJ.
Purshotam Singh
Versus
Narain Singh
Civil Misc. Writ No.24 of 1954
Decided On : 16-08-1955
JAGIR SUCCESSION - RECOGNITION - RAJPRAMUKH'S POWER - ABROGATION BY CONSTITUTION - VALIDATION OF DECISIONS BY ORDINANCE - APPLICABILITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - HEARING.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over succession to the jagir of Jilola after the death of the last holder, Thakur Pratapsingh, in September 1952. The applicant, Purshotam Singh, claimed succession as the adopted son of Pratapsingh's widow, while the opposite party, Narain Singh, also claimed succession. The Additional Jagir Commissioner conducted an inquiry and recommended succession in favor of Purshotam Singh if the rule of Murisala was ignored, but in favor of Narain Singh if the rule was applied. The Government recommended recognition of Narain Singh, which was approved by His Highness the Rajpramukh.
Finding of the Court:
1. The power of the Rajpramukh to recognize succession to jagirs under Art. VII(3) of the Covenant was abrogated by the Constitution of India on 26-1-1950, as held in Bahadur Singh v. Rajpramukh of Rajasthan, (S) AIR 1955 Raj 135 (A). 2. The Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Ordinance (No.6) of 1955 (the Ordinance), which came into force on 29-7-1955, validated the decisions of the Rajpramukh in cases or proceedings arising out of or under the laws of the covenanting States for recognition of succession to jagirs. 3. The Ordinance created a quasi-judicial tribunal for the purpose of deciding disputes relating to succession to jagirs, and the decisions of this tribunal were validated by S.3 of the Ordinance. 4. The Rajpramukh, as a quasi-judicial tribunal, was required to follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing for the parties involved.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rajpramukh's power to recognize succession to jagirs under Art. VII(3) of the Covenant was abrogated by the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Ordinance (No.6) of 1955 validated the Rajpramukh's decision in the present case. 3. Whether the Rajpramukh, as a quasi-judicial tribunal, was required to follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing for the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the Rajpramukh to recognize succession to jagirs under Art. VII(3) of the Covenant was abrogated by the Constitution of India on 26-1-1950, as held in Bahadur Singh v. Rajpramukh of Rajasthan, (S) AIR 1955 Raj 135 (A). This decision applied to the present case, as the dispute arose before the Constitution came into force and was not pending in any civil or revenue Court at the time the Qanoon Mal Mewar came into force in 1947. 2. The Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Ordinance (No.6) of 1955 validated the decisions of the Rajpramukh in cases or proceedings arising out of or under the laws of the covenanting States for recognition of succession to jagirs. The Ordinance created a quasi-judicial tribunal for the purpose of deciding disputes relating to succession to jagirs, and the decisions of this tribunal were validated by S.3 of the Ordinance. 3. The Rajpramukh, as a quasi-judicial tribunal, was required to follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing for the parties involved. In the present case, the Rajpramukh did not give a personal hearing to the applicant before passing the order in dispute, which violated the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the application, quashed the order of the Rajpramukh communicated to the applicant on 3-4-1954, and directed that the applicant should be heard in the manner provided by S.4 (d) of the Ordinance. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs before the Court.
WANCHOO, C. J. :-
This is an application by Purshotam Singh for a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution quashing the order of His Highness the Rajpramukh, which was conveyed to the Additional Jagir Commissioner, Udaipur, on 3-4-1954.
2. The facts put forward by the applicant insupport of his application are these :
3. The last holder of the Jagir of Jilola wasThakur Pratapsingh who died in September 1952without leaving any male issue. Pratap Singh had a son Govind Singh who had gone in adoption to the Jagirdar of Amet. Purshotamsingh is the son of this Govind Singh, and says that he was adopted by the widow of Pratapsingh as a son to Pratapsingh after his death.
The applicant also says that there was a will by Pratapsingh in his favour bequeathing all his property including the jagir to him. Anyhow disputes arose about the succession to the jagir on the death of Pratapsingh. Eventually the dispute was confined to Purshottam Singh on the one hand, and Narain Singh, opposite party, on the other. The matter was enquired into by the Additional Jagir Commissioner, and he made a report on 1-9-1953.
In this report, the Additional Jagir Commissioner said that Purshotamsingh would be entitled to succession if the rule of Murisala was ignored; but that if the rule of Murisala was applied, Narainsingh would be entitled to succeed. This report was sent to the Government, and eventually the Revenue Minister recommended to His Highness the Rajpramukh that Narain Singh should be recognised and this was done.
4. The applicant raised a number of contentions in his application, but the main contention was that after the coming into force of the Constitution of India on 26-1-1950, Art.7(3) of the Covenant under which His Highness the Rajpramukh exercised the power of recognising succession was abrogated. It is also said that His Highness the Rajpramukh was exercising quasi-judicial functions when exercising his powers under Art.7(3) of the Covenant, and the principles of natural justice had not been followed, inasmuch as His Highness the Rajpramukh did not afford the applicant an opportunity of being heard in support of his case. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State as well as by Narain Singh.
5. While the case was being argued in this Court, the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings(Validation) Ordinance (No.6) of 1955 (hereinafter called the Ordinance came into force from 29-7-1955. Consequently the main part of the argument was confined to the effect of this Ordinance on the decision of this Court in Bahadur Singh v. Rajpramukh of Rajasthan, (S) AIR 1955 Raj 135 (A).
We do not think it necessary under the circumstances to set out in detail the reply of the State and of Narain Singh, for the arguments before us were based on the decision in Bahadur Singhs case(A) as well as on the Ordinance. We, propose to indicate the arguments raised before us as we proceed with this judgment.
6. It was urged on behalf the opposite parties that the decision in Bahadur Singhs case (A), in which this Court decided that powers under Art.7(3) of the Covenant could not be exercised by the Rajpramukh after the coming into force of the Constitution, and therefore a decision by him in the matter of recognition of successor to a jagir from after 26-1-1950, did not bar a civil suit, did not apply to the facts of this case.
We are however of opinion that this contention has no force. The argument is put this way. Under the Qanoon Mal Mewar (Act No.5 of 1947), it is provided by S.107 that succession to a jagir etc. would be with the sanction of Shriji Hazur. Under Rajasthan Administration Ordinance (No.1 of 1949), it was provided in S.3 that all laws in force in any covenanting State shall continue subject to the modification inter alia that any reference therein to the Ruler of the State shall be construed as a reference to the Rajpramukh.
It is urged, therefore, that as S.107 provided re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
