The orders of the Special Deputy Collector and of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were challenged before the High Court on two grounds.
The first was that the appellant being the direct descendant of a sovereign ruler, the lands held by him for his personal use companyld number be the subject matter of ceiling laws.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Tej Singh Rao is a lineal male descendant of Pratap Rao Gujar who was one of the Generals of Shivaji the Great.
The High Court referred to the decisions of this Court in Umad Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., AIR 1963 S.C.953 State of Gujarat v. Vora Fidda Ali, AIR 1964 C.1043 Raj Kumar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 S.C.1793 Union of India v. Gwalior Reins Silk Manufacturing Company, AIR 1964 S.C.1903 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lal Bhargavendra Singh, AIR 1966 S.C.704 and came to the companyclusion that even in the case of a ruler who companybined in himself both executive and legislative powers of his government and was undisputed head of the state, the jurisprudential distinction between legislative enactment and executive action has number been obliterated and the question, whether a particular grant is a legislative grant or number, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The High Court examined the evidence on the record in detail and finally came to the companyclusion that the grant in question was a gift pure and simple and was number a legislative Act on the part of the ruler.
B. Masodkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4/5.12.1979 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No.
The High Court decided both the points against the appellant.
As both Vyankatrao and Banubai were minor, the grant was made in the name of Ramrao.
The question whether a grant made by a sovereign ruler amounts to law and if so under what circumstances, was examined by the High Court at length.
All villages in Bhiwapur Taluq and six villages in other Taluqs and annual cash allowance of Rs.
608 of 1982.
The lands in question were subject matter of the grant which was made in the year1793 by Raghoji II, the then ruler of Nagpur State, at the time of marriage of his daughter Banubai to Vyankatrao alias Nanasaheb, son of Ramrao, a male descendant of Pratap Rao Gujar.
He is holding 294.61 acres of land which is situated in the Bhiwapur Taluk of the erstwhile Nagpur State.
He filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands ceiling on holdings Act, 1961 the Act without prejudice to his claim that the lands are companyered by a sovereign legislative grant flowing from the sovereign authority of Raghoji II, the Bhonsle Ruler of Nagpur State, and as such did number companye within the purview of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Special Deputy Collector Land reforms declared 176.91 acres of the land as surplus.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with companyts.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Ranjit Kumar, D.K. Dubey, S.V. Nand, V. Balakrishna and Mrs. P.P. Mange for the Appellant.
This appeal by Tej Singh Rao by way of special leave petition is against the judgment of he High Court.
Tej Singh Rao challenged the order of the Special Deputy Collector and of the Tribunal before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The land owner preferred appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act.
1252 of 1970.
