Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 115
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Hidayatullah, Mudholkar
PRAVIR CHANDRA BHANJ DEO KAKATIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 1231 of 1951
Decided on : 16-10-1952
M W Puranik, S P Kotwal, T P Naik, W K Sheorey, Advocates
The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, applies to the property held by a Ruler who is an 'ex-Ruler' and a 'maufidar', and the villages in question fall within the definition of 'mahal' under the Act.
Headnote:
RULER'S PROPERTY - ABOLITION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS - MADHYA PRADESH ABOLITION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS ACT, 1950 - APPLICABILITY TO RULER'S PROPERTY - EX-RULER - MAUFIDAR - MEANING OF - WHETHER RULER'S PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF 'MAHAL' - ASSESSMENT TO LAND REVENUE - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, the Maharaja and Ruler of the former State of Bastar, challenged the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, to his proprietary rights in certain villages. He claimed that the agreements entered into with the Government of India recognized and guaranteed his rights and that the Act did not apply to Rulers or their private property not assessed to land revenue.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioner's rights under the agreements with the Government of India were barred from interference by Courts under Article 363(1) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the Petitioner fell within the definition of 'proprietor' under Section 2(m) of the Act as an 'ex-Ruler' and a 'maufidar' since the villages were exempt from payment of revenue. The Court further held that the villages were 'mahals' as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act since they were separately assessed to land revenue.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, applies to the property held by a Ruler? 2. Whether the Petitioner falls within the definition of 'proprietor' under Section 2(m) of the Act? 3. Whether the villages in question fall within the definition of 'mahal' under Section 2(j) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 363(1) of the Constitution bars interference by Courts in disputes arising out of the agreements entered into between the Petitioner and the Government of India. 2. The definition of 'Ruler' in Article 366(22) of the Constitution is artificial and applicable only for interpreting the provisions of the Constitution. The meaning of 'Ruler' and 'ex-Ruler' must be ascertained from the dictionary. 3. The Petitioner, having ceased to exercise any power or authority in his former domains, is an 'ex-Ruler'. He is also a 'maufidar' since the villages are exempt from payment of revenue. 4. The villages are 'mahals' as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act since they are separately assessed to land revenue.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
2. The Petitioner is the Maharaja and Ruler of the former State of Bastar which is now being administered as a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Petitioner had prayed for several reliefs originally, but now, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in - State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, 1952 AIR(SC) 252, he confines himself to the relief to the effect that it be declared that the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, does not affect his proprietary right in the villages set out in Schedules A and B to the petition.
3. According to the Petitioner, after the passing of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the paramountcy of the British Crown lapsed and he became a Sovereign Ruler of the territories comprised within the State of Bastar. The Petitioner then entered into an agreement with the Government of India and executed an 'Instrument of Accession' on the 14th of August 1947. Subsequently, he, like several other Indian Rulers, entered into an agreement with the Dominion of India popularly called 'The Stand Still Agreement'. Finally, on 15th December 1947, he entered into an agreement with the Government of India, known as the 'Merger Agreement' to the effect that the administration of the State of Bastar should be integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar [now the State of Madhya Pradesh) in such manner as the Government of India thought fit, that the Petitioner ceded to the Dominion Government full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers in relation to the governance of the State and that the administration of the State would be transferred to the Dominion Government as from 1st January 1948. According to the Petitioner, he is still the Ruler of the State of Bastar and that he has been so recognized by the Government of India and by the Constitution itself.
4. The Petitioner further points out that the aforesaid agreement entered into by him with the Government of India has provided that he should be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all his private properties belonging to him on the date of the agreement. He has specified a portion of the property in Schedules A and B to his petition. Schedule A sets out the names of 22 villages, 14 of which are collectively known as 'Bhandar villages' and the remaining 8 as 'Dowry villages'. Schedule B sets out the names of. 29 villages which, it is said, the Ruler always, reserves for his 'Patrani'. The group of these villages is known as the 'Patrani Jagir'; According to the Petitioner he holds these villages in absolute right, subject to one condition that upon his marriage the income from the Patrani Jagir would be paid to his wife for her maintenance during her lifetime. The Bhandar villages have always been 'maufi' villages while the Dowry villages and the villages in the Patrani Jagir were excluded from the revenue settlements of Bastar State.
5. He points out that though he is still the Sovereign Ruler and absolute owner of these, villages, his proprietary, right in them is being, acquired by the State of Madhya Pradesh, under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. According, to him, the provisions of this Act do not apply to him because, in the first place, his rights have been recognized and guaranteed under the agreements entered into by him with. the Government of India, and, in the second place, because the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act do not apply to a Ruler or to the private property of a Ruler which is not assessed to land-revenue. In support of the contention raised by the Petitioner his learned Counsel Shri Kotval relies on Article 6 of the Instrument of Accession, dated 14th August 1947 and the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Merger Agreement, dated 15th December 1947. These two Articles run thus:
Article 6 of the Instrument of Accession
