ruler under 366 22 only for constituion

MANU/NA/0046/1952

Equivalent Citation: AIR1953Nag86, [1952]ILR Nag943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR FULL BENCH

Misc. Petn. No. 1231 of 1951

Decided On: 16.10.1952

Appellants: Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya Vs.

Respondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Hidayatullah and Mudholkar, JJ.

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.P. Kotwal and M.W. Puranik, Advs.

For Respondents/Defendant: T.P. Naik, Addl. Govt. Pleader and W.K. Sheorey, Adv.

Subject: Property

Acts/Rules/Orders: Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 -Section 2; Indian Independence Act, 1947 ;Constitution of India - Article 226, Constitution of India - Article 227, Constitution of India - Article 291, Constitution of India - Article 291(1), Constitution of India - Article 362, Constitution of India - Article 363, Constitution of India -Article 366

Cases Referred: State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh MANU/SC/0020/1952 : AIR 1952 SC 252

Disposition: Petition Dismissed

Case Note: Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, Madhya Pradesh, 1954 (M.P. I of 1951), section 2(m) - "Proprietor"--Ruler of a merged state, who has executed an 'Instrument of Accession' and has entered into agreements called 'Stand Still Agreement' and 'Merger Agreement'--Section 2(m)(ii), Applicability of--'Maufidar'--Holder of land exempt from the payment of rent or tax--Constitution of India, Articles 363(1), 366(22)--"Ruler", definition of, in Article 366(22), Applicability of, in interpreting Acts other than the Constitution of India--Article 363(1) of the Constitution--Disputes arising out of "Stand Still Agreement" and "Instrument of Accession" executed by a Ruler--Civil Court--Jurisdiction--Bar. The ruler of a merged state who has executed an 'Instrument of Accession' and who has entered into agreements called 'Stand Still Agreement' with the Dominion of India and later 'Merger Agreement' with the Government of India has ceased to be a ruler but is an ex-ruler of a state. Being both a maufidar and an ex-ruler he is a 'proprietor' within the meaning of section 2(m)(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. 'Maufidar' in section 2(m) of the Act has not been used in any narrow or technical sense and is not confined to a grantee from a state or a Ruler of a state but also

2015-08-25 ( of 5 ) www.manupatra.com National Law University and Judicial Academy

includes any holder of land which is exempt from the payment of rent or tax. The definition of "Ruler" in clause 22 of Article 366 of the Constitution of India is plainly artificial and meant only for interpreting the provisions of the Constitution. It was not meant for interpreting other Acts. Clause 1 of Article 363 of the Constitution is a bar to interference by Courts in disputes arising out of "Instrument of Accession" and "Stand Still Agreement" executed by the Ruler of a merged state.

ORDER

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 MANU/SC/0020/1952 : AIR 1952 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:

Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purposes of the Dominion law which applies in this State deem' it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expenses or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

Article 3 of the Merger Agreement:

The Maharaja shall be entitled to the full-ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of this agreement.

The Maharaja will furnish to the Dominion Government before the 1st of January 1948, an inventory of all Immovable property, securities and cash balances held by him as such private property.

If any dispute arises as to whether any item of property is the private property of the Maharaja or State property, it shall be referred to such officer with Judicial experience as the Dominion Government may nominate and the decision of that Officer shall be final and binding on both parties.

He also refers us to Article 362 of the Constitution which requires the Parliament or the Legislature of a State to have due regard to the rights and privileges of the Rulers of the Indian States which were guaranteed or assured under any agreement which a Ruler had entered into with the Government of India. This Article, however, refers only to a covenant or agreement which is referred to in Article 291(1) of the Constitution. The guarantee in that provision refers only to the receipt of Privy purse, free of tax, and not to any other-right, his Article, therefore, is of no avail to the Petitioner in this case.

6. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner's rights under Article 6 of the Instrument of Accession and Article 3 of the Merger Agreement would be infringed if it was held that the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, applied to the property held by a Ruler. All that we need say is that Clause (1) of Article 363 of the Constitution is a bar to interference by Courts in disputes arising out of these two Instruments. The first point taken on behalf of the Petitioner therefore fails.

7. As regards the second point, what is contended, in the first place, is that the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, applies only to a property which is held by a person who falls within the definition of 'proprietor' contained in Section 2(m) of the Act and that the Petitioner being still the Ruler does not fall within that definition. We would reproduce that provision below:

'Proprietor' in relation to-

(i) the Central Provinces, includes an inferior proprietor, a protected thekadar or other thekadar, or a protected headman;

(ii) the merged territories means a maufidar including an ex-Ruler of an Indian State merged with Madhya Pradesh, a Zamindar, Ilaquedar,


Khorposhdar, or Jagirdar within the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz, or any 'sanad', deed or other instrument, and a gaontia, or a thekadar of a village in respect of which by or under the provisions contained in the wajib-ul-arz applicable to such village the maufidar, the gaontia, or the thekadar, as the case may be, has a right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in such village;

(iii) Berar, means a superior holder. Clauses (i) and (iii) of that definition do not, apply to the Petitioner. Clause (ii) would apply only if it is held that he is a maufidar and an 'ex-Ruler' but not otherwise:

8. It is argued that a maufidar is necessarily a grantee from a State or a Ruler of a State and therefore a Ruler cannot conceivably be a maufidar. The word 'maufidar' is derived from the word 'maufi' which, according to the dictionary, means "Released, exempted; exempt from the payment of rent or tax, rent free." The word 'maufidar', according to the dictionary, means "A holder of rent-free land, a grantee." In our opinion, the word 'maufidar' used in the definition has not been used in any narrow or technical sense. Therefore it would not be confined to a grantee but would also include any holder of land which is exempt from the payment of rent or tax. It is common ground that these villages are exempt from payment of revenue and therefore a proprietor of these villages would fall within the dentition of maufidar.

9. The next question is whether the Petitioner who claims to be the Ruler is outside the definition. The term 'Ruler' is defined thus in Clause (22) of Article 366 of the Constitution.

'Ruler' in relation to an Indian State means the Prince, Chief or other person by whom any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in Clause (1) of Article 291 was entered onto and who for the time being is recognised by the President as the Ruler of the State, and includes any person who for the time being is recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler.

According to this definition and also under the agreement which was entered into with the Government of India the Petitioner is entitled to be called a Ruler. Since that is 'so and since the definition in the Act refers, to an 'ex-Ruler' it is contended that the Petitioner cannot fall within that definition. In our opinion, the definition of a Ruler contained in the Constitution is plainly artificial and is therefore applicable only for interpreting the, provisions of the Constitution. It cannot be applied for interpreting other Acts. The meaning of the word 'Ruler' and of the word 'ex-Ruler' must on the other hand, be ascertained from the dictionary as the Act in question does not define these words.

10. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 'Ruler' means "one who, or that which, exercises rule, especially of a supreme or sovereign kind. One who has control, management, or headship within some limited sphere." The Petitioner did exercise such rule in the past but by the operation' of the Agreements of Accession and merger he has ceased to exercise any power or authority in his former domains. He is, therefore, an ex-Ruler now and not a Ruler. Thus, being both a maufidar and an ex-Ruler, he falls within the definition of 'proprietor' mentioned in Section 2(m), Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950.

11. What remains to be considered then is whether these villages fall in any of the categories, "Estates, Mahals, Alienated lands". They cannot fall in the first or the third category - but only in the second one, that is 'Mahal.' Even then it must be shown that each of the villages was separately assessed to land-revenue. This is because of the definition of 'mahal' contained in Section 2(j) of the Act, which runs thus:

'Mahal', in relation to merged territories, means any area other that land in possession of a 'raiyat' which has been separately assessed to land revenue, whether such land revenue be payable or has been released, compounded for or redeemed in whole or in part.


According to the Petitioner, these villages were not assessed to land-revenue; but this fact is denied on behalf of the State. Since the fact was denied by the State, it was necessary for the Petitioner to establish that these villages were never assessed to land-revenue. There is no evidence to this effect. On the contrary it would appear from the documents on record that the villages known as 'Bhandar villages' have been assessed to land-revenue. The rest of the villages in Schedule A and the villages in Schedule B have not, so far, been recognized as the private property of the Petitioner by the Government of India as required by paras 2 and 3 of the Merger Agreement. Till they are: so recognized the Petitioner cannot assert his ownership over them. The contention raised by him must, therefore, fail.

12. In the result the petition must be dismissed and accordingly we dismiss it with-costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/-.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.


ruler under 366 22 only for constituion

Documents