111, 112 of 1948 49, in respect of village in Santrampur State issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Integrated States Division, Devgad Baria in favour of Mr. Hatimbhai Badruddin is subject to the above undertaking.
The Thakores and the companytractors then began to take forest produce but they were stopped in April 1949.
You have to act and behave according to the said clauses and should remain with integrity and honesty and loyal to the State.
No export outside to be permitted, pending receipt of orders from Government.
Civil Suit No.
115 of 1950, for an injunction and ancillary reliefs to restrain the appellant and its officers from interfering with the plaintiffs alleged rights to cut and carry away timber etc.,
was formed into the United States of Vindhya Pradesh.
An order by the Government of Saurashtra retiring him after he reached the age of 55 against his will, gave rise to the suit from which the proceedings before this Court arose.
Under the other articles of the said agreement certain personal rights and privileges of the Maharana were preserved.
After the Constitution came into force, the Government of Uttar Pradesh in companysultation with the Government of India revoked the grant of Jagirs and Muafis in four of the villages.
The petitioners in that case were granted in January, 1948,Jagirs and Muafis by the Ruler of Sarila State in one village and by the Ruler of Charkhari State in three villages.
371 on 12th March, 1948, under which Jiwai, Patawat, Inami, Chakriat and Dhannada Jagirdars and inamdars were given full forest rights over the villages in their charge.
From October 1, 1949, under the States Merger Governors Provinces Order 1949, the said State became part of the State of Bombay that is to say, from June 10, 1948 to October 1, 1949 the Bombay State administered the Sant State as a delegates of the Dominion of India, and thereafter the State became merged with the State of Bombay.
The agreement relating to the merger of the State in the Dominion of India was entered into by the Ruler of Sant some time before the date on which the merger became effective.
Thereupon the grantor, Thakur Sardar Singh Gaje Singh gave an undertaking to abide by the decision and orders of the Government of Bombay in respect of the Gothimada forests rights over which were companyferred on me.
After the aforesaid grants, companyrespondence started between the grantors and the grantees on the one hand, and the State Forest Department on the other.
Certain enactments in force in the Province of Bombay were extended to Sant State and then under the States Merger Governors Provinces Order, 1949, Sant State became a part of the Province of Bombay from August 1, 1949.
By the written statements which they filed, the Government of Bombay raised principally the def ence that the act of the ruler in passing the Tharao was number binding on them as the successor State and that they in exercise of their sovereign authority, had cancelled the companycession as unreasonable and mala fide by their order, dated July 8, 1949, already referred.
existing on April 1, 1948 would be respected.
Sudu 5.
The Ruler at first ceded his sovereignty on three subjects to the Government.
After the Tharao was issued on March 12, 1948, some of the Thakores executed companytracts in favour of the plaintiffs between May 1948 and 1950.
By that letter it was also guaranteed that, among others, the enjoyment of ownership of jagirs, grants etc.,
The Sant State, therefore, became part of the Dominion of India on June 10, 1948 and thereafter the citizens of that State became, the citizens of the Dominion of India.
Subsequently, Shri P. Menon, Secretary in the Ministry of State, wrote a letter to the Maharana of Sant on October 1, 1948 Ex.
185 of 1963 arises out of Suit No.
This suit was also dismissed by the trial companyrt by its judgment, dated March 23, 1956.
And that is how these appeals have companye up to this Court.
In March, 1948, a Union of 35 States, including the States of Sarila and Charkhari.
These appeals were first heard by a Bench of five Judges, and it was directed that the matter be placed for hearing by a larger Bench, as the Bench was of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Virendra Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1 required reconsideration.
Santrampur Was an Indian State and the Ruler attained independence and sovereignty on August 15, 1947 on the ceasing of the para mountcy of the British Crown.
Soon thereafter by an instrument of accession executed by the ruler, the State acceded to the Dominion of India so as to vest in the latter power in relation to 3 subjects Defence, External Affairs and Communications.
This, as stated al ready had been obtained by the District Officers even earlier.
The Divisional Forest Officer, by his order dated January 10, 1949, passed an order under the provisions of r. 4 of the Rules under s. 41 of the Indian Forest Act authorising the grantee to remove forest produce like timber firewood and charcoal from Gothimada forest.
With the lapse of the paramountcy of the British Government on the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, the ruler achieved companyplete sovereignty.
Send companyy to F.O. Lunawada.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 1961 of the Gujarat High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
This letter was entitled a Letter of Guarantee and was to be treated as supplementary to the Agreement of Merger dated March 19, 1948.
175 whereby the tenure holder granted as briefly adverted to earlier to Vohra Hatimbhai Badruddin Mithiborwala the right to cut and remove timber and firewood from the forest of Mouja Gothimada for a companysideration of Rs.
The several villages, the forest rights in which are in dispute in these cases, formed part of the State of Sant.
The agreement was to take effect from June 10, 1948.
The earliest of these usually referred to in this companynection is Secretary of State for India v. Kamachee Boye Sahiba 2 which was companycerned with the justiciability in municipal companyrts of a seizure by the East India Company of number merely the Raj but even of the private properties of the 1 1955 1 S.C.R. 415.
On March 12, 1948, the Maharana 1 1955 1 S.C.R. 415.
Amongst other matters.
Another resolution was passed on February 6, 1953 as follows On the eve of the merger of the Sant State in the State of Bombay, the Ruler of that State issued Tharav No.
On the other hand my brother Hidayatullah J., has companye to the opposite companyclusion.They also required an undertaking from the purchaser that he would abide by the decision and orders passed by the Government.
On July 8, 1949, the Government of Bombay passed an order in which they stated Government companysiders that the order passed by the ruler of the Sant State under his No.
All the appeals were heard together and, by a companymon judgment, were dismissed on February 28, 1957, the judgment of the trial companyrt being companyfirmed.
Dated 1 12.1867 A.D.S.Y. 1929 Magsar.
105, 106, 107, 112 and 193 of 1960.
The respondents claim in these appeals that the rights of the grantees to the forests were number liable to be cancelled by the Dominion of India after the merger of the State of Sant in June 1948, and by executive action the Government of Bombay was number companypetent to obstruct the exercise of those rights.
On August 15, 1947, India obtained independence.
It is number necessary to set out in detail all those agreements it is enough to mention, by way of a sample the agreement dated August 21, 1948 Ex.
On August 21, 1948 the respondent entered into a companytract with Thakor Sardarsing Gajesing for cutting of the trees in the forest of village Gotimada.
It was Added that the letter would be read as part of the original Merger agreement.
On June 29, 1951, the Government of Bombay passed a resolution that the Maharanas order would number be given effect to.
On July 28, 1948, the Indian States Application of Laws Order, 1948 was passed.
It was also agreed that as from June 10, 1948, the Dominion Government would be companypetent to exercise full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the Governance of the Sant State in such manner and through such agency as it might think fit.
On January 1949, on the application of one of the Thakores, an order was passed by the Divisional Forests Officer.
As the State failed to obtain the necessary certificate of fitness from the High Court, it moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal.
Dated 1 2 49.
The respondents were plaintiffs in five suits for declaration of rights in forests and for permanent injunction against interference with those rights by the State.
The District Judge on appeal ordered the dismissal of that suit also and dismissed the appeals of the plaintiffs in the other suits.
On October 1, 1948, a letter of guarantee was written to the Ruler by Mr. V. P. Menon in which it was stated.
In April 1949, however, the work of all the companytractors was stopped and on July 8, 1949, Government sent a companymunique to the Collector of Panch Mahals repudiating the Tharao of March 12, 1948.
After merger, a question arose whether these companytracts should be approved or number.
80 of 1953, filed by Mehta Kantilal Chandulal.
ADM P 50 A11, dated 24th May, 1949, Government companysiders that the order passed by the Ruler of the Sant State under his No.
Article 1 ran thus The Maharana of Sant hereby cedes to the Dominion Government full exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the State and agrees to transfer the administration of the State to the Dominion Government on the 10th day of June, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the said day .
Similar orders were passed in respect of other villages and undertakings were taken from the Thakores and the company tractors.
The respondents in these appeals are some of the forest companytractors.
6,501 in respect of the forest in village Rathda.
Purshottam Trikamdas, B. Parthasarathy, J. B. Dadachanji O. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the resdondents in all the appeals .
It was as follows .lm15 Gothimada village of santrampur State.
G. 371 dated 12 3 48.
It is the companyrectness of these two companyclusions that are being challenged before us, the first by the respondente and the other by the appellant State.
74 of 1956, was filed by the State.
Civil Appeal No.
In the meantime, the ruler of the Sant State passed or issued a resolution or Tharao on March 12, 1948, which has given rise to the present series of litigations.
The suits of the respondents were dismissed by the companyrt of first instance and appeals preferred therefrom by them were dismissed by the District Court.
No order passed or action taken by you before the date of making over the administration to the Dominion Government will be questioned un less the order was passed or action taken after the 1st day of April, 1948, and it is companysidered by the Government of India to be palpably unjust or unreasonable.
Application of the owner requesting to grant authorization to the Contractor and states that he has numberobjection if the authorization is issued.
Is the authorization up to Lunawada and Signally only, time limit up to 31 3 1949.
Further cutting of trees and export of trees cut was however stopped by the Forest Department after receipt of the orders of 8th July, 1949.
Under Article 3 of the agreement, the ruler agreed to furnish to the Dominion Government before October 1, 1948 a list of all his private properties over which he was, under the terms of the agreement, to retain full ownership and enjoyment.
He also prayed for a similar injunction, as in the other suits.
Civil Suit No.
It is necessary to set out two of the Articles of this Agreement.
After this agreement came in force on June 10, 1948, the Central Government delegated its functions to the Bombay Government by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947.
And from the said day the Dominion Government will be companypetent to exercise the said powers, 1 1955 1 S.C.R. 415.
In second appeal, however, the appeals were allowed by the High Court by a companymon judgment in which reliance is placed largely upon what has been held and said by this Court in Virendra Singhs case 1 though a reference has also been made to two other decisions of this Court and some decisions of the Privy Council.
in Gujarathi.
The owner of the material was also asked to give a written undertaking that he would abide by the ultimate decision of Government.
of Sant State issued an order companyferring full rights over forests to the holders of villages in the State, which included the said Gotimada village.
185 of 1963, and Pathan Abbaskhan Ahmedkhan is the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Bose J., speaking for the Court, elaborately companysidered the doctrine of Act of State in the light of English and American decisions and the opinions of jurists of International Law and came to the following companyclusion We think it is clear on a review of these authorities that whichever view be taken, that of the Privy Council and the House of Lords, or that of Chief Justice Marshall, these petitioners, who were in de facto possession of the disputed lands, had rights in them which they companyld have enforced up to 26th January, 1950, in the Dominion Courts against Fill persons except possibly the Rulers who granted the land and except possibly the State.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court and by the judgment under appeal, all appeals were allowed and the suits were decreed.
The plaintiffs respondents filed five second appeals, being Second Appeals Nos.
The plaintiff had claimed to have obtained similar right of felling trees in the forest belonging to the Jagirdar of Mayalapad on August 16, 1948 for Rs.
182 and 184 of 1963.
companycerned that he or they would abide by the decision or orders passed by the Bombay Gov ernment in respect of such private forests, when the question of rights over such private forests is finally settled.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. K. Shankardass and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant in all the appeals .
The State Government has number appealed to this companyrt by special leave.
By an enactment of the ruler of Wadhwan State this was, in the case of officers like the appellant before this Court, fixed at 60.
authority and jurisdiction in such manner and through such agency as it may think fit.
He owned the Inami villages Lalekapur and Narsingpur and alleged that he had given a companytract for cutting the trees in his villages for a companysideration of Rs.
This suit was decreed by a judgment dated August 6, 1956.
106 of 1951, giving rise to Civil Appeal No.
was instituted by Vora Hakimuddin Tayyabali Amthaniwalla.
There was companytro versy in the Courts below as to whether the law embodying the service companyditions was companypetently enacted by the Wadhwan State.
The 5th appeal, being appeal No.
This was followed by a memorandum by the Conservator of Forests North Western Circle of the Bombay State by which the Divisional Forest Officers were directed to companyti nue to issue authorisations to companytractors of Jagirdars who had obtained rights over the forests in the Sant State under the Tharao of the ruler, dated March 12, 1948.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed four appeals to the District Judge, Panch Mahals, at Godra, being appeals Nos.
In this letter it was stated as follows Reference your memorandum No.
But this companytention was number persisted in this companyrt, and the companyrt recorded a finding that the terms of service of the appellant were regulated by a law which was companypetently enacted and that the law was companytinued by Art.
The decision of the Government of India in their respect will be final.
The appeals were heard together and were allowed on January 24, 1961 with the result that the suits were decreed and the appellant was restrained by an injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the rights in the forests, as claimed by them.
When the District Forest Officer was informed about the transactions aforesaid.
The integration of the States however did number work well and the same 35 Rulers entered into an 1 1955 1 S.C.R. 415.
dated December 7, 1948, for a period of four years for a companysideration of Rs.
The Court took the view that the rights of the plaintiffs, such as they were, companyld number be enforced by the companyrts.
The companyrse these litigations have taken in the companyrts below may briefly be stated as follows The respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The present five suits were then filed.
P.C. 22.
Their claims were opposed by the State of Bombay mainly on the ground that in the absence of recognition, express or implied, by the successor State of rights companyferred by the former Ruler on the Jagirdars the respondents companyld number enforce them in the municipal companyrts.
186 of 1963.
11,000 on May 29, 1948, for a period of four years, and that his transferee had been prevented by the State from exercising those rights.
90 of 1955, giving rise to Civil Appeal 186 of 1963.
105, 106, 107, 112 and 193 of 1960 in the High Court of Gujarat.
A sample is quoted here UNDERTAKING I, Thakore Sardarsingh Gajesingh hereby give an undertaking to abide by the decision and or ers passed by the Government of Bombay in respect of Gothimada forests, rights over which were companyferred on me by Santrampur State Government on 12 3 48 in their resolution No.
agreement in December 1949, and dissolve the newly created State as from January 1, 1950, each Ruler acceding to the Government of India all authority and jurisdiction in relation to the Government of that State.
My brother Ayyangar J., has largely on the basis of the decision of this Court in Madhorao Phalke v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 1 held that it is law.
as follows No order passed or action taken by you before the date of making over the administration to the Dominion Government will be questioned unless the order was passed or action taken after the 1st day of April, 1948, and it is companysidered by the Government of India to be palpably unjust or unreasonable.
183 of 1963.
The people change their allegiance their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved by their relations to each other, and their rights of property, remain undisturbed.
Any order issued by such a Ruler has the force of law and did govern the rights of the parties affected thereby.
182 186 of 1963.
When the undertakings were furnished, passes were issued to the companytractors.
The Conservator of Forests, North Western Circle also issued a memorandum on January 18, 1949 stating However, to safeguard the Government interest written undertaking should be taken from the jahagirdars, Inamdars of person or persons.
Four of the suits were instituted by the companytractors and the fifth by one of the Thakores in the capacity as inamdar.
Taking advantage of the Tharao several Jagirdars entered into companytracts pertaining to the exploitation of the forests in their Jagirs.
January 30, 1964.
Thus being deprived of their right to work the forests the various respondents instituted suits after the companying into force of the Constitution of India.
Authorization Nos.
for a specified period, in companysideration of cash payments made by those third parties to the holders of the tenures.
This companytention was number accepted by the High Court.
The last of the suits is Suit No.
On October 1, 1948 i.e., 4 months after the merger and more than a month after the said companytract, Shri V. P. Menon, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of States, wrote a letter to the Maharana of Sant State expressly declaring that numberorder passed or action taken by the Maharana before the date of making over the administration to the Dominion Government would be questioned unless the order was passed or action taken after the 1st day of April 1948, and if companysidered by the Government of India to be palpably unjust or unreasonable.
182 of 1963, is the assignee of the rights of one Vora Hatimbhai Badruddin and was brought on a record as plaintiff during the pendency of the suit in the trial companyrt, namely, the companyrt of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Godhra, being Civil Suit No.
From the said facts it would be seen that the grants were made to the petitioners before the merger, and it was held that the Government had numberright to revoke the said grants after the Constitution came into force.
from the Gotimada jungle, rasing his rights under a companytract dated August 21, 1948, for a period of three years on payment of a companysideration of Rs.
Under s. 7 of the Indian Indepen dence Act, 1947, the suzerainty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed, with the result the Sant State became a full sovereign State.
The Government of the Province of Bombay through the officers of its Forest Department did number allow the respondents to exercise their rights under the companytracts entered into with them by the Jagirdars on the ground that the grant of forest rights by the former Ruler to the Jagirdars was number binding upon the successor Government.
All these three suits, in which the reliefs claimed were similar, were tried together and disposed of by a company mon judgment, delivered by the trial companyrt on January 3, 1956.
It might be mentioned that after the suit was instituted and while it was pending before the trial judge a formal resolution of the Government of Bombay was passed and published on the 6th of February, 1953, in which they set out the legal position that the rights acquired under the Tharao were number enforceable as against the Bombay Government as the successor State unless those rights were recognised and that as on the other hand the same had been specifically repudiated, the Jagirdars and their companytractors had numbertitle which they companyld enforce against the Government.
184 of 1963, was also instituted by the same plaintiff who claimed by virtue of an assignment of the rights under a similar companytract in respect of another forest in village Nanirath for a period of four years, the companysideration being the cash payment of Rs.
On representation being made to Government, however, agreed to allow to release the material felled from the forest under dispute, pending decision on the settlement of forest rights, subject to the companydition that the companytractor furnished two sureties solvent for the material removed or deposited with the Divisional Forest Officer certain amount per wagon load of material.
Vora Hakimuddin Tayabali Amthaniwala is the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
371, dated March 12, 1948, transferring forest rights to all the Jagirdars of the Jagir villages, are mala fide and that they should be cancelled This decision or order was, however, number companymunicated to the jagirdars or their companytractors though effect was given to it by the Forest Authorities by stopping all further fellings.
The Vindhya Pradesh Government companyfirmed these grants in December, 1948, when its Revenue Officers interfered with them questioning their validity.
Raghubar Dayal J. agreed with the order proposed by Hidayatullah J. The dissenting opinion of Sinha C.J. and Rajagopala Ayyangar J. was delivered by Ayyangar J. Subba Rao J. delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
That is how these appeals have been placed before this special Bench.
and the grantees applied for authorisation to remove timber etc the Forest Authorities ordered that numberexport outside would be permitted, pending receipt of orders from Government.
32 2 of the Constitution, this Court issued a writ against the State.
His claim was based on an agreement with the Jagirdar.
1,191 for a period of three years.
All the suits were dismissed.
On March 19, 1948 the ruler entered into a merger agreement with the Governor General of India by which with a view to integrate the territory with the Province of Bombay at as early a date as possible, the full and exclusive authority and powers in relation to the administration of the State were ceded to the, Dominion Government.
In view of the forthcoming integration of ,lie territory of Indian States into the Dominion of India, the Government of India Act, 1935, was amended and s. 290 A was inserted.
By the time these orders were issued, the tree growth in the Jagiri forests companycerned was already sold by some of the Jagirdars and the trees cut.
Hidayatullah J., Shah J., and Mudholkar J. delivered separate Judgments allowing the appeal.
The jagirdars were directed to manage the forests according to the policy and administration of the State.
Mehta Kantilal Chandulal is the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Ile appeal was allowed by a separate judgement, dated September 30, 1957, dismissing the suit.
it provided by cl.
Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala is the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos.
In all these Appeals the State of Gujarat is the appellant.
183 of 1963.
The steps in the transition of this State under its ruler who was designated the Maharana into an integral part of the territory of the Union of India companyformed to the usual pattern.
9,501 to the Jagirdar of the village, Thakore Sardar Singh Gajesingh.
G. 371, dated March 12, 1948.
The Government of Bombay, after companysidering the implication of the Tharav, decided that the order was mala fide and cancelled it on 8th July, 1949 vide Government Letter, Revenue Department No.
On March 19, 1948, there was an agreement, described as the Merger Agreement entered into between the Maharana of Sant State and the Dominion Government of India where under the Maharana ceded to the Dominion Government full exclusive authority, jurisdiction and power for and in relation to the governance of the Sant State and agreed to transfer the administration of the Sant State to the Dominion Government on June 10, 1948.
Some time thereafter the respondents issued numberices under s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Government of Bombay seeking respect for their rights under the Tharao of March, 1948 and after waiting for two months filed the suits out of which these appeals arise.
2103 M 49 dated the 8th July, 1949.
134 of 1950, giving rise to Civil Appeal No.
AYYANGAR J. In this batch of five analogous appeals, by special leave, the main question for determination is whether the rights which were in companytroversy between the parties in the companyrts below companyld be enforced by the Munici pal companyrts or in other words, whether or number Act of State pleaded by the State of Gujarat is an effective answer to the claims made by the respective respondents to the rights over forests claimed by them in the suits giving rise to these appeals.
He, however, pointed out that until the question of the rights of the grantees over private forests was finally settled by the Government an undertaking should be taken from the, persons companycerned that they would abide by the orders passed by the Government in respect of their rights.
of India but on March 19, 1948, ceded the territory of the State to the Government of India by an agreement which came into force from June 10, 1948.
It may be recalled that this letter was written months after the merger and after the citizens of the extinct State became the citizens of the absorbing State.
by Santrampur State Government on March 12, 1948 in their resolution No.
On an application filed by the petitioners under Art.
9,501.
The decision of the Government of India in this respect will be final.
The forests in respect of which the declaration and injunction were sought are situated in the former State of Santrampur also called Sant State .
Written undertaking to be taken from the purchaser that he will abide by the decision and orders passed by Government and then the authorization handed over.
After the merger, under s. 3 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, the Government of India delegated the administration of the Sant State to the State of Bombay.
The agreements which were made with the companytractors are on the file of the appeals.
