Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
Govindrao and others, Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1971
Decided on 7-5-1982.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mr. S. A. Shroff and Mr. D. P. Mohanty, Advocates, for Respondents.
* Misc. Petn. No. 61 of 1967, D/- 9-3-1970 (Madh Pra).
The whole object and purpose of the legislation, as reflected in the Preamble, is to revoke all prevalent exemptions from liability to pay land revenue. The legislature felt that there was no justification for continuing the exemption from liability to pay land revenue hitherto enjoyed causing loss to the public exchequer. Except grants for specific purposes, the exemptions were mostly in consideration of loyalty and help rendered in the past and there was no reason why they should be allowed to be continued at present and cause unavoidable loss to the Revenue. Where such exemptions were granted for services and it was considered that the services should continue, or where it was considered necessary to continue in individual cases, certain grants made in the past, provision has been made to do so by the award of money grants and pensions. [Para 5
(2) Revocation of Land Revenue Exemption Act, 1948 (C. P. and Berar) S. 5 (3) (ii) -Ruling Chief - meaning of.
Normally the expression 'ruling chief' connotes a person who is endowed with the content of sovereignty and also has the attributes of a sovereign. [Para 8
(3) Act of State - International law - cession by treaty - subjects of the ceded territory -cannot enforce the terms of the treaty - only the rights recognised by the successor State are enforceable.
After a sovereign State has acquired territory, eight her by conquest or by cession under treaty or by the occupation of territory 'theretofore unoccupied by the recognized ruler or otherwise, an inhabitant of a territory can enforce in the municipal Courts only such proprietary rights as the sovereign has conferred or recognized. Even if a treaty of cession stipulates that certain inhabitants shall enjoy certain rights, that gives them no right which they can so enforce. The meaning of a general statement in a proclamation or a treaty that existing rights would be recognized is that the Government will recognize such rights as upon investigation it finds existed. The Government does not thereby renounce its right to recognize only such titles as it considers should be recognized nor confer upon the municipal Courts any powers to adjudicate in the matter. [Para 32
(4) Revocation of Land Revenue Exemption Act, 1948 (C. P. and Berar) - S. 5 (3) (ii) Jagirdars of Timarni - are not descendants of former ‘Ruling chief’ - cannot claim benefit under the provision.
Although the government officials took great pains to determine what was the position of Jagirdar of Timarni, the Government ultimately came to the conclusion that he held the status of an ordinary British subject and was not a feudatory chief exercising any sovereign powers. [Para 42
Thus they are not entitled to any money or pension under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act. [Para 46
JUDGMENT
A. P. SEN, J. :— This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated March 10, 1970, by which the High Court declined to interfere with an order of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh dated Sept. 9, 1966 disallowing the appellants claim to the grant of money or pension under cl. (ii) of sub-see. (3) of S. 5 of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 (for short the Act) on the ground that they are not entitled to the grant of such money or pension not being the descendants of a former Ruling Chief in terms thereof.
2. After the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 was brought into force, the appellants who held estates in the districts of Hoshangabad and Nimar on favourable terms as Jagirdars, Muafidars and Ubaridars enjoyed exemption from payment of land revenue amounting to an aggregate of Rs. 27,895.05 p. per annum, made applications to the Deputy Commissioners of Hoshangabad and Nimar claiming that the members of the Bhuskute family of Timarni to which they belonged were the descendants of a former Ruling Chief and therefore were entitled to a substantial grant of money or pension for their suitable maintenance in terms of clause (ii) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 5 of the Act. It was alleged that although their ancestors had acquired the rights of a Ruling Chief by virtue of the sanads granted by the Peshwas and recognized by the Scindias and were all along treated as such even by the British, they were wrongly recorded as Jagirdars of Timarni in the record of rights which was no evidence of their real status. The applications were forwarded by the respective Deputy Commissioners to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The State Government, by its order dated May 13, 1955, rejected their prayer holding that they were not entitled to the grant of such amount or pension not being the descendants of a former Ruling Chief within the meaning of cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of S. 5 of the Act. A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated April 20, 1959, (reported in AIR 1959 Madh Pra 339) declined to interfere on the ground that the proceedings under sub-s. (3) of S. 5 of the Act could not be said to be judicial or quasi-judicial in nature as the use of the word "may" in sub-see. (3) of S. 5 of the Act made the grant of money or pension in the discretion of the State Government. Disagreeing with the High Court, this Court in Govindrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1965) 1 SCR 678 held that the word "may" used in sub-sec. (3) of S. 5 must, in the context, be construed to have a compulsive force and therefore on the existence of the condition precedent, the grant of money or pension became obligatory on the Government notwithstanding that in sub-sec. (2) the Government had power to pass such orders as it thought fit. It observed that in passing orders on the applications made by the appellants the State Government had to act in a quasi-judicial manner. The appellants therefore had to be given an opportunity to state their case and were also entitled to know why their claim had been rejected.
3. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Govindraos case, supra, the State Government afforded the appellants an opportunity of hearing on Aug. 6, 1966 to substantiate their claim for grant of money or pension under cl. (ii) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 5 of the Act on the ground that they were the descendants of a former Ruling Chief in terms of the section. The State Government in the impugned order specifically mentions that "the appellants mainly based their claim only on the sanad issued during the regime of Chhatrapati Shahu in 1777 A.D.", that is, granted by the Peshwa Madhavrao by which their ancestor Ramchandra Bullal was granted the jagir of Timarni, on a construction of the document, the State Govt. held that the sanad did not confer on the grantee the powers of a
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
