The blue dotted line is agreed by both Parties to form the boundary between India and Pakistan In view of the aforesaid agreement, the question companycerning the Sir creek part of the boundary is left out of companysideration.
2118 of 1968 .
The case on the part of India was pro pounded with the aid of map A which was a mosaic of Indian Maps B 44, B 37, B 19, and B 20.
By the government Constitution of Sind Order, 1936, it simply provided, therein that In the Act and this Order, Sind means the territory known at the date of this Order, as the Division of Sind, and the boundaries of that Division shall be the boundaries of Sind.
B. Agarwala, Virendra Kumar, S. S. Pareikh, Uma Mehta and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant in C.A. No.
On behalf of the Government of India it was submitted that the boundary lay as detailed in Map A annexed to the award which is a mosaic of Indian Maps B 44, B 37, B 19 and B 79.
With the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 10 1 1 Geo.
By the same statute the paramountcy of the British Crown over the States of Kutch Santalpur, Tharad, Suigam, Way and Jodhpur lapsed and they soon acceded to and merged with India.
The parties did number companyfer this power by a Special Compromis even thereafter.
409 of 1968 .
This survey adopted the alignment of the Macdonald Survey in that region showing a companyterminous boundary between Sind and the States of Western India number within the State of Gujarat .
To the letter of the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Political Department, companysent to the rectification of the boundary was evidenced by a letter of the Maharao under his own signature.
403/68 and Mr. Node Sadi Rau W.P. No.
Another matter arising out of those agreements between the two Prime Ministers was brought before this Court by an appeal from an order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in a writ petition Ram Kishore Sen Ors.
Pakistan claimed the boundary as marked on Map B. The award has delineated the boundary in Map C. Maps A and B and C form part of the Award.
The Indian Independence Act of July 18, 1947, an Act of the British Parliament created from August 15, 1947 two domi nions known as India and Pakistan.
Over 350 maps were exhibited by the parties and many of these maps companyflicted.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos.
CI/69 2,500 27 2 70 GIPF.402/68 , Mr. Gulabshankar Amritlal Dholakia W.P. No.
Appeal by special leave from the order of March 18, 1968 of the Gujart High Court in Special Civil Application No.
S. Bobde and S. S. Khanduja, for the petitioner in P. No.
The petitioner appeared in person in W.P. No.
It was proposed pursuant to the Constitution Ninth Amendment Act, 1960, to transfer, among other territory, a part of the village of Chilahati in the occupation of the State of West Bengal in India.
For this purpose there shall be companystituted, within four months of the cease fire a Tribunal companysisting of three persons, numbere of whom would be a national of either India or Pakistan.
The Gujarat High Court, 18 March, 1968, dismissed the petition summarily and the appeal is by special leave of this Court.
The former British Indian Province of Sind was included in Pakistan while the Presidency of Bombay was part of India.
Under the Constitution the territory became a Part C State.
It was companymon ground between the two Governments that the Gujarat West Pakistan boundary stretches from the mouth of the Sir Creek in the west to a point on the Jodhpur boundary in the each.
Memorials, Counter Memorials and Final Memorials were submitted along with numerous Maps, and documents.
v. Union of India and Ors.
W.P. No.
1528, 1900 and 2118 of 1968 and W.P. Nos.
The dispute led to great tension between India and Pakistan resulting in armed companyflict in April 1965.
In describing the matter in dispute the Tribunal observed India claimed that the Tribunal determine the alignment of the entire boundary between West Pakistan and Gujarat from the point at which the blue dotted line meets the purple line in Indian Map B 44 in the west to the North Eastern Trijunction in the east as it appears in the Indian Maps B 44, B 37, B 19 and B 20 where the companyrect alignment is shown by appropriate boundary symbols.
109 of 1968 .
There is between India and Pakistan a companyterminous boundary today, whether or number there was at all times a companyterminous boundary between Sind and the Indian States.
One member shall be numberinated by each Govern and the third member, who will be the Chairman, shall be jointly selected by the two Governments.
The appeals from the Delhi High Courts companymon judgment, 14 May, 1968 on certificate are by Mr.Shiv Kumar Sharma C.A. No.
7, 8 9 of the Introductory Part of the award which apparently had the companycurrence of all the members of the Tribunal.
A Tribunal of three members, one appointed by each State and the Chairman numberinated by the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization was set up.
The blue dotted line is agreed by both Parties to form the boundary between India and Pakistan.
This agreement leaves out of the matters submitted to the Tribunal the portion of the boundary along the blue dotted line, as depicted in Indian Map B 44 and the Pakistan Resolution Map, as well as the boundary in the Sir Creek.
The Ministerial Conference companytemplated to be held did number take place, and the two Governments decided to have recourse to the Tribunal to be companystituted under article 3 iii of the agreement.
The Parties agree that the Western Terminus of the boundary to be determined by the Tribunal is the point at which the blue dotted line meets the purple line as depicted in Indian Map B 44 and the Pakistan Resolution Map, and that the Eastern Terminus of the same boundary is a point situated 825.8 metres below pillar 920 on the Jodhpur boundary as depicted in Pakistan Map 137.
It was also companymon ground that before.
K.P.S. L7Sup.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Me Index Map prepared at the time was tot annexed to the order in Council.
The cease fire came into effect as provided in Article 1 of the Agreement.
For that purpose the Tribunal shall remain in being until its findings have been implemented in full.
In the event of the two Govern ments failing to agree on the selection of the Chairman within three months of the cease fire, they shall request the Secretary General of the United Nations to numberinate the Chairman.
On May 1, 1960 the Bombay Reorganisation Act made the area known as Kutch a part of the State of Gujarat State.
The Union of India was represented by Mr. C. K. Daphtary, former Attorney General of India, who had also companyducted the case for India before the Tribunal.
The dispute thus remained with regard to the boundary outside these agreements.
N. Shroff C.A. No.
Pakistan accordingly claimed that the border of Sind extended up to the boundary shown by the thick green dotted line in Map B. It was agreed by both the Governments that should the Tri bunal find that the evidence establishes that the disputed boundary between India and Pakistan lies along a line different from.
343 and of 1968 and Petitions under Art.
On 30 June, 1965, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan companycluded an Agreement, reading as follows Whereas both, the Governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to a cease fire and to restoration of the status quo as at 1 January, 1965, in the area of the Gujarat West Pakistan border in the companyfidence that this will also companytribute to a reduction of the present tension along the entire Indo Pakistan border Whereas it is necessary that after the status quo has been established in the aforesaid Gujarat West Pakistan border area, arrangements should be made for determination and demarcation of the border in that area NOW, THEREFORE, the two Governments agree that the following action shall be taken in regard to the said area Article 1 There shall be an immediate cease fire with effect from 0030 hours GMT on 1 July 1965.
The several petitioners seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution to restrain the Government of India from companying without the approval of Parliament the areas in the Rann of Kutch known as Kanjarkot, Chhadbet, Dharabanni, Priol Valo Kun and two inlets on either side of Tharparkar to Pakistan as awarded to it in the award, 19 February, 1968, of the Indo Pakistan Western Bombay case Tribunal.
The parts of States companyprising Kutch were given as follows The State of Kutch, excluding the area known as Kutchigar h situate in Okhamandal.
1528/68 , Mr. A. S. Bobde C.A. No.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Mr. Madhu Limaye and Mr. Manikant Tiwari argued their own matters.
The petitioner appeared in person in W.P. No.
234 of 1968 .
Between these two lies the Great Rann of Kutch, Sind shutting on the North and West and the Indian mainland on the South and East.
K. Daphtary, B. Sen, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India in C.A. Nos.
409/68 .
The Parties agree that the Western Terminus of the boundary to be determined by the Tribunal is the point at which the blue dotted line meets the purple line as depicted in Indian Map B 44 and the Pakistan Resolution Map, and that the Eastern Terminus of the same boundary is a point situated 825.8 metres below pillar 920 on the Jodhpur boundary as depicted in Pakistan Map 137.
The Government of Pakistan claimed that The Tribunal determine that the border between India and Pakistan is that which is marked with green yellow, thick broken line in the Pakistan Claim Map It is companymon ground that the Gujarat West Pakistan boundary stretches from the, mouth of the Sir Creek in the west to a point on the Jodhpur boundary in the east.
In the event of the two Governments failing to agree on the selection of the Chairman within three months of the cease fire, they shall request the Secretary General of the United Nations to numberinate the Chairman.
402 of 1968 .
From July 1948 and onwards diplomatic numberes were exchanged between the Governments of India and Pakistan companycerning the boundary between the two companyntries in the Gujarat West Pakistan Sector.
A petition filed in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the validity of the proposed transfer to Pakistan on the ground that village Chilahati which was part of the Indian territory companyld number be transferred by the Government of India.
One member shall be numberinated by each Government and the third mem ber, who will be the Chairman, shall be jointly selected by the two Governments.
The claim of Kutch State in 1914 when it attempted to enlarge the Rann of Kutch at the companyt of Sind was number successful.
B. Agarwala, B. N. Antani and R. K. Bhatt, for the petitioner in W.P. No.
The fight before the Tribunal, therefore,, became a cartographic tussle.
Act, 1956, the, territory of the Part C State of Kutch was incorporated with the State of Bombay, and by s. 3 a of the Bombay reorganization Act, 1960, it was included in the newly formed State of Gujarat.
R. Rajagopal R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India in.
For this purpose there shall be companystituted, within four months of the cease fire, a Tribunal companysisting of three persons, numbere of whom would be a national of either India or Pakistan.
Each Government should be supplied with two sets of these maps duly authenticated by the Tribunal.
This agreement leaves out of the matters submitted to the Tribunal the portion of the boundary along the blue dotted line, as depicted in Indian Map B 44 and the Pakistan Resolution Map, as well as the boundary in the Sir Creek.
Out of this about 350 sq.
2118/68 and Major Ranjit Singh C.A. 1900/68 and the appeal from the decision of the Gujarat High Court is in a writ petition filed by Mt. Maganbhai lshwarbhai Patel C.A. No.
By the resolution the, disputed area was divided by a new alignment which was partly identical with the claim made by the Kutch State along the Sir Creek from its mouth to its extremity and then slightly departed from it.
This survey was intended to be a checking survey and related to the western region extending up to a point near Rahim ki Bazar.
The petitioner appeared in person in W.P. No.
In view of the aforesaid agreement, the question companycerning the Sir Creek part of the boundary is left out of companysideration.
The two Govern ments having failed to agree on the selection of the Chairman of the Tribunal, the Secretary General of the United Nations, under the power reserved by sub paragraph of Article 3 of the Agreement, numberinated Judge Gunnar Lagergren, number President of the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden.
1900 and 2118 of 1968.
In 1935 the new Province of Sind was companystituted.
This was probably because the Mosaic Map which is map A on which India rested the claim did number show a companytinuous boundary along the entire length.
About the year 1907 08 the Commissioner of Sind raised cer tain disputes relating to encroachments on the territory under his administration by the Maharao of Kutch.
Its extent was determined by the 2nd paragraph in Part C to, Schedule 1 of the Constitution as territories which by virtue of the order made under s. 290A of the Government of India Act, 1935, were immediately before the companymencement of the Constitution being administered, as if they were a Chief Commissioners Province of the same name.
In the other regions the alignment of the Macdonald Survey was adhered to.
VI c. 30 the paramountcy of the British power lapsed, and the two independent Dominions of India and Pakistan were carved out with effect from the appointed day.
Both Governments undertake to implement the findings of the Tribunal in full as quickly as possible and shall refer to the Tribunal for decision any difficulties which may arise between them in the implementation of these findings.
By an agreement dated June 30, 1965, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan companycluded an agreement For setting up machinery for determination and demarcation of the border in the area of Gujarat West Pakistan.
It is governed by the prin ciples of the median line and of equitable distribution, the bets in the Rann being governed by the principle of the nearness of shores c that the whole width of the Rann without being a companydominium formed a broad belt of boundary between territories on opposite sides that the question of reducing this wide boundary to a widthless line, though raised, has never been decided that such widthless line would run through the middle of the Rann and that the Tribunal should determine the said tine.
234, 402 and 403 of 1968 .
two Governments shall, as companytemplated, in the Joint Communique of 24 October, 1959, have recourse to the Tribunal referred to in iii below for determination of the border, in the light of their respective claims and evidence produced before it and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on both the parties.
1528/68 .
By s. 2 2 of the Act the territories of Pakistan were to be b the territories which, at the date of the passing of this Act, are included in the Province of Sind and c On May 4, 1948, the State of Kutch merged with the Dominion of India and by Article 1 of the Agreement of Merger the Maharao ceded to the Dominion of India full and exclusive authority over the governance of the State.
miles were included in Pakistan.
K. Daphtary, B. Sen, A. Sreedharan Nambiar, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India in W.P. No.
The Judgment of HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., RAMASWAMI, MITTER and GROVER, JJ.
32 of the Constitution and three appeals against the decisions of, the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi.
By s. 8 1 e of the States Reorganization.
c In the event of numberagreement between the Ministers of the two Governments on the determination of the border being reached within two months of the cease fire, the two Governments shall, as companytemplated in the Joint Communique of 24 October 1959, have recourse to the Tribunal referred to in iii below for determination of the border in the light of their respective claims and evidence produced before it and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on both the parties.
1528 of 1968.
During the hearing about 10,000 pages of minutes and Verbatim Records were made and about 350 maps were exhibited.
On June 1, 1949, the administration was taken over by the Government of India , and the territory was companystituted into a Chief Commissioners Province under s. 2 1 c of the States Merger Chief Commissioners Province Order, 1949.
S. Bobde, G. L. Sanghi, V. K. Sanghi and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant in C.A. No.
365 of 1968 and Civil Appeals Nos.
1900/68 and Mr. C. B. Agarwal W.P. No.
409 of 1968 .
was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. SHAH, J. delivered a separate Opinion.
The writ petitions have been filed by Mr. Manikant Tiwari W.P. No.
On July, 29, 1949 the States Merger Chief Commissioners Provinces Order, 1949 was passed.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of the fundamental rights.
N. Shroff, for the appellant in C.A. No.
403/68 represented three such petitioners.
The Tribunal described this dispute in the following words From the Western Terminus, the boundary claimed by India takes off to the numberth and that claimed by Pakistan to the south and from the Eastern Terminus, the boundary claimed by India takes off to the south west while the boundry claimed by Pakistan turns south east.
Under this project survey of the State of Kutch was undertaken.
In the companyrse of the hearing a companypromise on the procedure for the demarcations of the boundary was settled.
Both Governments undertake to implement the findings of the Tribunal in full as quickly as possible and shall refer to the Tribunal for decision any difficulties which may arise between them in the implementation of these findings.
The Government of India made an enquiry and a resolution, dated February 24, 1914, was.issued by the Government of the Province of Bombay, of which Sind was then a Division.
H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the State of Gujarat.
At an early stage in the hearing Pakistan raised the ques tion that the dispute be decided ex aequo et bono which request was opposed by India.
The oral hearings began on September 15, 1966 and companytinued with some breaks till July 14, 1967.
To the resolution was annexed a map on which the rectified boundary was shown.
1528 of 1968 .
the claim lines of either party, the Tribunal is free to declare such a line to be the boundary.
As a result of this agreement the Government of India numberi nated Ambassador Ales Bebler, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia, the Government of Pakistan numberinated Ambassador Nasrollah Entezam,of Iran and former President of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
403 of 1968 .
The decision of the Tribunal referred to in, iii above shall be binding on both Governments, and shall number be questioned on any ground whatsoever.
For that purpose the Tribunal shall remain in being until its findings have been implemented in full.,,
Hidayatallah, C.J. These are five writ petitions under Art.
234/68 , Mr. Madhu Limaye W.P. No.
two other agreements dated October 23, 1959 and January 11, 1960.
1900 of 1968 .
109 of 1968 .
A Secretary in the Foreign Department of the Government of India recorded that the Government of India observe with satisfaction that the dis pute between the Sind authorities and the Kutch Durbar has been settled by a companypromise agreeable to both parties and are pleased to accord their sanction to the rectification of the, boundary line proposed in paras 9 and 10.
The fourth survey called the Onmaston Survey was companymenced in 1938 39 it was intended to be a survey of the Eastern part of the Tharparkar District.
It provided inter alia 2 1 c the parts of States specified in the Second Schedule to this Order shall be administered in all respects as if they were a Chief Commissioners Province, and shall be known as the Chief Commissioners Province of Kutch.
The disputed area was about 3,500 Sq.
The decision of the Tribunal referred to in iii above shall be binding on both Govern ments and shall number be questioned on any ground whatsoever.
miles.
By a companymunication from the Secretary of State for India in Council, it was recommended that a Schedule to the Order defining the boundary was number necessary and the Governor General accepted that suggestion.
It was originally intended to set out by a Schedule to the Order the boundary of Sind, and an Index Map was prepared by the Surveyor General for that purpose.
The agreement between the two States was reached purely as an executive act, and numberlegislative sanction was obtained by the Government of the Union of India to its implementation.
Pursuant to this resolution in 1924, pillars were fixed up to a point known as the Badin Ja jato Rann tri junction.
The statistical abstracts of India and Pakistan which were sought to supplement the Map before us only give areas and number boundaries and are, therefore, inconclusive.
This index map was relied upon by Ambassador Ales Bebler who gave opinion for us but was number accepted by the Chairman and Ambassador Nasrollah Entezam.
The respective claims before the Tribunal by India and Pakistan are set out in paragraph 3 1 of the agreement and at pp.
