112/60 and for the respondents in C. A. No.
1 and 2 in C. A. No.
11 2 and 11 3 of 1960.
Subsequently, when the Rajput Rulers of Gangpur settled in that area, these Bhuiyan Chiefs accepted the suzerainty of those Rulers and gradually surrendered their sovereign rights.
113/60 .
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 25, 1957, of the Orissa High Court in 0.
November 16.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Previously it was part of the feudatory State of Gangpur.
The High Court has found that the remote ancestors of the petitioners were Bhuiyan Chiefs, who were the original settlers and who had in companyrse of time become the chieftains of the place, exercising sovereign powers.
226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus against the State of Orissa and the Collector of Sundargarh, which is a district formed after Merger.
The High Court, on an examination of the relevant evidence, came to the companyclusion that these Zamindars ultimately lost all vestiges of their sovereignty, and as a result of historical process became subject to the laws promulgated by the Ruler of Gangpur, and that when the Ruler merged his State with the State of Orissa, with effect from January 1, 1948, these petitioners were numberbetter than mere subjects and had absolutely numberclaims to sovereign power.
J. C. Nos.
As the questions raised in the High Court and in this Court are the same in both the appeals, they have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both.
miles between them.
The two petitioners Zamindaries companyered about 540 sq.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. These two appeals on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Orissa raise the question of the companystitutionality of the Orissa Estates Abolition Amendment Act Orissa XVII of 1954 amending the main Act, the Orissa Estates Abolition Act Orissa 1 of 1952 , which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act.
It appears that the two Zamindars of Hemgir and Sarpgarh moved the High Court of Orissa under Art.
B. Agarwala, R. Gopalakrishnan and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents Nos.
C. Chatterjee, M. S. Mohanty, A. N. Singh and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants.
164 and 181 of 1954.
The petitioners in the High Court in their petitions, claimed a sovereign status and referred to a mass of historical literature, including references to the Imperial Gazetteer by W. W. Hunter, Sir Richard Temples Treaties, Zamindaries, Chieftainships in Central Provinces, and other official records.
Their status vis a vis the Ruler of Gangpur remained undefined, though in successive revenue settlements made by the Ruler of Gangpur, with the companycurrence of the then political Department, of the Government of India, they were described as Zamindars, and Khewats were issued to them.
They used to pay annual Takolis, which they originally paid as tributes to the suzerain, but which later became indistinguishable from land revenue.
