Patanjali Sastri, J.-

This is a suit to obtain from this Court a declaration that,

“Ramgarh is entitled to be an Acceding State under section 204 of the Government of India Act as adapted by the Governor-General.”

and that

“the defendant, the Province of Bihar, has no authority to legislate or exercise any powers of Government over the Ramgarh State or its Rulers or its subjects.”

The plaint also seeks certain other ancillary reliefs to which it is not necessary now to make a detailed reference. The plaintiff claims that he is the “legal Ruler of the Ramgarh State” and as such entitled to the declaration of his status as against the defendant who “contemplates further invasion of his rights.”

This plaint is a prolix document consisting of 72 paragraphs dealing mostly with the origin and history of the alleged State both before and during the British rule. It is admitted that Ramgarh was brought under the Bengal Permanent Settlement Regulation (XI of 1793) and was regarded and dealt with as a permanently settled zamindari till the 15th August, 1947. It is, however, alleged that for centuries before the Permanent Settlement, Ramgarh was a Sovereign State, and that the engagements with the British Government for payment of land revenue, etc., from the time of the Permanent Settlement were merely agreements entered into by Ramgarh as a feudatory State and involved no loss of sovereignty. It is further alleged that the de facto exercise of “what appears to be sovereign powers” by the British Power “must be attributed to an excessive extension of suzerainty due to the sufferance of the lawful Ruler of the State”. It is claimed that the effect of section 7 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, is that all treaties, engagements, obligations, etc., in respect of States lapsed as from the 15th August 1947, and that, in consequence, the original sovereign status of Ramgarh has revived, as from the said date,

“freed of all clouds in the form of different kinds of control, from all powers of jurisdiction exercised by the British Indian Government by agreement or sufferance or otherwise.”

The plaint goes on to state that a memorial was submitted to His Majesty the King and the States Department of the Government of India praying for the recognition of the status of Ramgarh as a Native State but that the Provincial Government of Bihar,

“without jurisdiction to decide on the subject and without entering into the merits of the case.”

rejected the same on 1st December, 1947.

The cause of action is alleged to have arisen,

“when the East India Company first interfered with the administration of the plaintiff State in the year 1772,”

and on the 15th August, 1947,

“when under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the British suzerainty lapsed and the plaintiff was restored to its original position of absolute independence,”

and also on the 1st December, 1947, when the Governor of Bihar rejected the plaintiff’s claim for recognition as a State.

The plaintiff invokes the original jurisdiction of this Court under section 204 of the Government of India Act as adapted by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),

“inasmuch as there is no other Court in the land to decide such questions and inasmuch as the plaintiff State has expressed its willingness to be an Acceding State as understood by the Government of India Act, has submitted a memorial to His Majesty the King, the Secretary of State for India, to His Excellency the Governor-General of India, to the States Department of the Government of India, to His Excellency the Governor of Bihar and to the Political Secretary to the Government of Bihar and the plaintiff State is prepared to sign the Instrument of Accession any time such Instrument is forwarded to him for his signature”.

As the plaintiff did not even allege in the plaint that Ramgarh is an “Acceding State,” the suit was directed to be set down for hearing on the preliminary question whether this Court had jurisdiction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document