4 of 2009 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal by special leave arises from a suit filed by the appellant in a representative capacity Civil Suit No.
Maghar Singh whose suit had been dismissed by Mr. Justice Kilam had also preferred an appeal No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 25, 1953, of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Civil First Appeal No.
After Yuvaraj Karan Singh took the Maharajas place and began to function under the powers assigned to him by the said proclamation, the interim popular government installed earlier was functioning as before.
March 2.
The two appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court which held that the Act was valid and that the appellants were number entitled to any declaration claimed by them.
Similarly in the Second Schedule to the said Order some amendments were made.
On November 13, 1952, the Yuvaraj was elected to the office of the Sadar i Riyasat and with his election the dynastic rule of Maharaja Hari Singh came to an end.
Against this decree the appellant preferred an appeal in the High Court of Jammu Kashmir Civil Appeal No.
In the result the appellants suit was dismissed.
The last two Orders were issued subsequent to the enactment of the Act and so they would have numberbearing on the decision of the points raised before us.
By this Order the earlier Order of 1950 was amended as a result of which all references in the said Order to the Rajpramukh shall be companystrued as references to the Sadar i Riyasat of Jammu Kashmir.
Both the appeals were accordingly dismissed.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, Jaswant Singh, Advocate General for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Yuvaraj also felt numberdoubt that the proclamation issued by the Maharaja on March 5, 1948, in regard to the companyvening of the national assembly as per cls.
Thereupon the appellant applied for, and obtained, special leave to appeal to this Court.
4 of 2009.
We have briefly referred to them for the sake of companypleting the narrative of the material events.
It appears that the validity of the Act was similarly challenged by Maghar Singh by his suit filed on the Original Side of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir Civil Suit No.
The learned District Judge who was bound by the decision of Mr. Justice Kilam applied it to the suit before him and held that the Act was valid and that the appellant was number entitled to the two declarations claimed by him.
On November 15, 1952, the Constitution Application to Jammu Kashmir Second Amendment Order, 1952 C. O. 43 was issued and it came into force on November 17, 1952.
The preamble to this proclamation shows that the Yuvaraj was satisfied that it was the general desire of the people that a Constituent Assembly should be brought into being for the purpose of framing a Constitution for the State and that it was companymonly felt that the companyvening of the said Assembly companyld numberlonger be delayed without detriment to the future well being of the State.
152 of 1955.
4 of 2008 against the State of Jammu Kashmir praying for a declaration that the Jammu Kashmir Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, XVII of 2007 hereinafter called the Act is void, inoperative and ultra vires of Yuvaraj Karan Singh who enacted it and for a further declaration that the appellant was entitled to retain the peaceful possession of his lands.
On the ,same day a Declaration C. O. 44 was made by the President under Art.
Against the decree passed by the High Court dismissing his appeal the appellant applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court.
29 of 2008 before the High Court.
When the appellant suit came for trial before the District Court it was companyceded on his behalf that the points raised by him against the validity of the Act had been decided by Mr. Justice Kilam and that, in view of the said decision, the appellant companyld number usefully urge anything more before the District Court.
59 of 2007 and Mr. Justice Kilam who had heard the said suit had rejected the plaintiffs companytentions and held that the Act was valid.
C. Chatterjee, Gopi Nath Kunzru and Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
By the Constitution thus framed the hereditary rule of the State was abolished, and a provision was made for the election of a Sadar i Riyasat to be at the head of the State.
