Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18
PETITIONER:
SARDAR GOVINDRAO & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/05/1982
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
DESAI, D.A.
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
CITATION:
1982 AIR 1201 1982 SCR (3) 729
1982 SCC (2) 414
ACT:
Central Provinces & Berar Revocation of Land Revenue
Exemptions Act 1948-Section 5(3) (ii)-Grant of money or
pension-Persons entitled to-Burden of proving that they were
descendants of a Ruling Chief-Rests upon claimants.
International law-Cession-Under treaty-Rights of
inhabitants-How acquired.
Words and phrases:-Ruling Chief-Sovereignty-Meaning of
HEADNOTE:
In consideration of the loyal services rendered by
them, two remote ancestors of the appellants received in
1751 a sanad from the Peshwa Balaji Rao by which they were
conferred the title of "Bhuskute" and were made sur mandloi
and sur kanungo. They were created watandars with the
reservation of sur deshmukhi in respect of certain mahals in
Sarkar Handia and in Sarkar Bijagarh, rent-free in
perpetuity with right to retain 4% of the revenue. They
remained the Amils or Governors of the Peshwa at Handia till
1768 A.D. In the mean-time they were granted inams of
certain villages.
After the defeat of the Maharatta army in the third
battle of Panipat in 1761 A.D. the appellants ancestors lost
their position and power as sur mandloi and sur kanungo in
Sarkar Handia. By the sanad of 1777 the Peshwa created them
the Jagirdar of Timarni comprising of Timarni and four other
villages together with the fort with sur deshmukhi in
perpetuity. The sanad of 1798 permitted them to maintain
irregular soldiery for recovery of taxes and cesses. The
grant of jagir was later confirmed by the Scindias and this
was continued by the British.
After the Scindias ceded the territory in question to
the British in 1860, the British Government undertook to
recognise and respect the existing rights and titles of its
new subjects to their lands.
After a full investigation into the nature of the
estates transferred and the nature of tenures of their new
subjects, the British Government declared in 1865 that
except "the chief, the Chief of Makrai, all the zamindars
are to be regarded and treated as ordinary British
subjects". The estates in question, which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18
730
were located in the districts of Hoshangabad and Nimar, were
held by the appellants on favourable terms as Jagirdars,
Muafidars and Ubaridara in which they enjoyed exemption from
payment of land revenue amounting to Rs. 27,895 per annum.
Having found that there was no justification for
continuing the exemption from liability to pay land revenue
hitherto enjoyed by certain families in the former province
of Central Provinces and Berar, and also because it resulted
in loss to the public exchequer, the provincial legislature
passed the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land
Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 by which all prevalent
exemptions from liability to pay land revenue were revoked.
In their application under section 5(3) (ii) of the Act
the appellants claimed that the "Bhuskute" family of
Timarni, to which they belonged, were the descendants of a
former ruling chief and in that capacity they were entitled
to a substantial grant of money or pension for maintenance
in terms of section 5 (3) (ii).
Rejecting their application the State Government held
that the ancestors of the appellants were no more than the
watandars of a small territory under the Peshwas and later
under the Scindias and with the transfer of sovereignty to
the British they lost their administrative power and
retained only their muafi. It accordingly, held that the
appellants were not the decendants of a former Ruling Chief
and so were not entitled to the grant of any amount or
pension in terms of section 5(3) (ii) of the Act.
The High Court declined to intervene with the order of
the State Government on the ground that the appellants never
enjoyed any status higher than that of a Jagirdar.
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: Not being the descendants of a former Ruling
Chief, the appellants were not entitled to any money or
pension in terms of section 5 (3) (ii) of Central Provinces
and Land Revocation of Land Revenue Act, 1948. [754 D]
It does not appear from the impugned order of the State
Government that there was any error of jurisdiction in
refusing to grant money or pension to the appellants under
section 5 (3) (ii) of the Act or any incorrect determination
of the basic facts on their part in reaching the conclusion
that their ancestors never exercised sovereign powers of a
Ruling Chief in relation to the jagirs of Timarni granted by
the Peshwas and later confirmed by the Scindias and
continued by the British at the request of the Scindias.
[738 H; 739 A-C]
The expression "Ruling Chief" has not been defined in
the Act and must be understood as the term is understood in
common parlance. Normally it connotes "a person who is
endowed with the content of sovereignty and also has the
attributes of a sovereign". Sovereignty, according to its
normal legal conno-
731
tation, is the supreme power which governs the body politic,
or society which constitutes the State, and this power is
independent of the particular form of Government, whether
monarchial autocratic or democratic. [736 E; 737 A-C]
After a sovereign State has acquired territory, either
by conquest or by cession under treaty or by the occupation
of territory theretofore unoccupied by the recognised Ruler
or otherwise, an inhabitant of a territory can enforce in
the municipal courts only such proprietary rights as the
sovereign has conferred or recognised. Even if a treaty of
cession stipulates that certain inhabitants shall enjoy
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18
certain rights, that gives them no right which they can so
enforce. The meaning of a general statement in a
proclamation or a treaty that existing rights would be
recognised is that the Government will recognise such rights
as upon investigation it finds existed. The Government does
not thereby renounce its right to recognise only such titles
as it considers should be recognised nor confer upon the
municipal courts any powers to adjudicate in the matter.
[747 H; 748 A-C]
Vajesingji Joravarsingji & Ors. v. Secretary of State
for India in Council L.R. [1923-24] 51 IA 357; and Bir
Bikram Deo v. Secretary of State for India in Council, L.R.
[1911-12]39 IA 31; and Martand Rao v. Malhar Rao, L.R.
[1927-28] 55 IA 45, relied on.
Kunwarlal Singh v. Provincial Government, Central
Provinces and Berar. I.L.R. [1944] Nagpur 181, referred to.
The burden of proving that after cession of the
territory by the Scindias to the British by the treaty of
1860, the British Government acknowledged or recognised the
existence of any sovereign rights with the ancestors of the
appellants, was upon them and that burden they have failed
to discharge. On the contrary, the British Government
decided on the basis of the enquiry that the Zamindars in
the Central Provinces including those of the appellants’
ancestors, had to be regarded and treated as ordinary
British subjects. [749 B, C]
Viewed in the historical perspective the appellants
pretensions that their ancestors acquired attributes of
sovereignty in relation to the jagir of Timarni can hardly
stand scrutiny. The tenor of all the sanads granted to the
ancestors of the appellants shows that they were nothing
more than Jagirdars of Timarni and that they had never
attained the status of a feudatory or tributary Ruling Chief
under the sovereignty of the Peshwas or the Scindias. The
British Government never recognised the appellants’
ancestors who like all other Zamindars and Jagirdars in the
Central Provinces, were laying claim to be recognised as a
chieftain to be a Ruling Chief. After the establishment of
the British rule, the Governor General came to the
conclusion that the ancestors of the appellants had to be
regarded and treated as ordinary British subjects. [744 C;
745 F; 747 G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 256 of
1971.
732
From the Judgment and order dated the 9th March, 1970
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur) in Misc.
Petition No. 61 of 1967.
V.M. Tarkunde and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellants.
Gopal Subramaniam, S.A. Shroff and D.P. Mohanty for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against
the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
dated March 10, 1970, by which the High Court declined to
interfere with an order of the State Government of Madhya
Pradesh dated September 9, 1966 disallowing the appellant’s
claim to the grant of money or pension under cl. (ii) of
sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Central Provinces and Berar
Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 (for short
’the Act’) on the ground that they are not entitled to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18
grant of such money or pension not being ’the descendants of
a former Ruling Chief’ in terms thereof.
After the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of
Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 was brought into force,
the appellants who held estates in the districts of
Hoshangabad and Nimar on favourable terms as Jagirdar’s
Muafidars and Ubaridars enjoyed exemption from payment of
land revenue amounting to an aggregate of Rs. 27,895.05p.
per annum, made applications to the Deputy Commissioners of
Hoshangabad and Nimar claiming that the members of the
Bhuskute family of Timarni to which they belonged were the
descendants of a former Ruling Chief and therefore were
entitled to a substantial grant of money or pension for
their suitable maintenance in terms of cl. (ii) of sub-s.
(3) of s. 5 of the Act. It was alleged that although their
ancestors had acquired the rights of a Ruling Chief by
virtue of the sanads granted by the Peshwas and recognized
by the Scindias and were all along treated as such even by
the British, they were wrongly recorded as Jagirdars of
Timarni in the record of rights which was no evidence of
their real status. The applications were forwarded by the
respective Deputy Commissioners to the State Government of
Madhya Pradesh. The State Government, by its order dated May
13, 1955, rejected their prayer holding that they were not
733
entitled to the grant of such amount or pension not being
the descendants of a former Ruling Chief within the meaning
of cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act. A Full Bench
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated April
20, 1959 declined to interfere on the ground that the
proceedings under sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act could not be
said to be judicial or quasi-judicial in nature as the use
of the word "may" in sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act made the
grant of money or pension in the discretion of the State
Government. Disagreeing with the High Court, this Court in
Sardar Govindrao & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(1)
held that the word "may" used in sub-s. (3) of s. 5 must, in
the context, be construed to have a compulsive force and
therefore on the existence of the condition precedent, the
grant of money or pension became obligatory on the
Government notwithstanding that in sub-s. (2) the Government
had power to pass such orders as it thought fit. It observed
that in passing orders on the applications made by the
appellants the State Government had to act in a quasi-
judicial manner. The appellants therefore had to be given an
opportunity to state their case and were also entitled to
know why their claim had been rejected.
In compliance with the directions issued by this Court
in Govindrao’s case, supra, the State Government afforded
the appellants an opportunity of hearing on August 6, 1966
to substantiate their claim for grant of money or pension
under cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act on the
ground that they were the descendants of a former Ruling
Chief in terms of the section. The State Government in the
impugned order specifically mentions that ’the appellants
mainly based their claim only on the sanad issued during the
regime of Chhatrapati Shahu in 1777 A.D.", that is, granted
by the Peshwa Madhavrao by which their ancestor Ramchandra
Bullal was granted the jagir of Timarni. On a construction
of the document, the State Government held that the sanad
did not confer on the grantee the powers of a Ruling Chief.
It observed that the later grants by the Peshwas referred to
the ancestors of the appellants as sur-mandloi and sur-
kanungo and not as a Ruling Chief and the grants were in the
nature of inams being emoluments appurtenant to their
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18
office. It further held that even after the suzerainty had
passed from the Peshwas to the Scindias, the grant of
village Piplia and Bhaili to their ancestors by Daulatrao
734
Scindia by the two sanads of 1802 and 1804 referred to them
as sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo and not as a Ruling Chief,
and they were conferred no rights except that of a mere
inamdar. During the period of management of the tract by the
British on behalf of the Scindias from the years 1844 to
1860, the jagir was continued as a muafi in perpetuity at
the desire of the Scindias. As regards the period after the
transfer of suzerainty the British never recognized the
ancestors of the appellants to be a Ruling Chief. In coming
to that conclusion, it relied upon the decision of the
Governor General in Council conveyed by the letter of the
Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Central Provinces
dated March 3, 1865. The State Government taking into
consideration all these circumstances held that the
ancestors of the appellants were no more than the watandars
of small territory under the Peshwas and later under the
Scindias and with the transfer of sovereignty to the
British, they lost their administrative powers and retained
only their muafi. The State Government accordingly held that
the appellants were not the descendants of a former Ruling
Chief and therefore were not entitled to the grant of any
amount or pension under cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of
the Act.
On a consideration of the material on record, the High
Court came to the conclusion that there was no error
apparent on the record to warrant interference with impugned
order of the State Government. According to the High Court,
cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act authorized the
State Government to grant money or pension to those families
alone whose ancestors had been granted remissions in land
revenue, not on account of any services rendered by them but
in consideration of the fact that they were deprived of
their sovereign powers. It referred to the existence of a
feudal system known as the jagirdari system, prevalent in
the erst-while State of Gwalior, which was a legacy of the
past, under which the land revenue of a territory was
assigned to a chief or a noble, known as the jagirdar, to
support troops, police and for specified services.(1) It
observed that the Legislature has kept the distinction in
view while enacting cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the
Act. After referring to the material on record, it came to
the same conclusion as the State Government and held that
the ancestors of the appellants never enjoyed the powers of
a tributary or feudatory chief
735
under the Peshwas or the Scindias that they held status of
sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo and were holding the lands muafi
in perpetuity, being in the nature of service grant. The
conferral of rights in them by the Peshwas in favour of a
loyal servant and instead of making a cash grant for the
services rendered, they were permitted to collect their
remuneration from a part of the revenue and maintain
themselves from the profits derived from the lands
appurtenant to their office. It would thus appear that both
the High Court as well as the State Government were of the
view that the appellants never enjoyed any status higher
than that of a jagirdar.
The whole object and purpose of the legislation, as
reflected in the Preamble, is to revoke all prevalent
exemptions from liability to pay land revenue. The
Legislature felt that there was no justification for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18
continuing the exemption from liability to pay land revenue
hitherto enjoyed causing loss to the public exchequer.
Except grants for specific purposes, the exemptions were
mostly in consideration of loyalty and help rendered in the
past and there was no reason why they should be allowed to
be continued at present and cause unavoidable loss to the
Revenue. Where such exemptions were granted for services and
it was considered that the services should continue, or
where it was considered necessary to continue in individual
cases, certain grants made in the past, provision has been
made to do so by the award of money grants and pensions.
Sub-s. (1) of s. 3 provides:
"3. (1) Every estate, mahal, village or land to
whatever purpose applied and wherever situate, which
was heretofore exempted from payment of the whole or
part of land revenue by special grant of, or contract
with the Crown, or under the provision of any law or
rule for the time being in force or in pursuance of any
other instrument, shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in any such grant, contract, law, rule or
instrument, be liable from the agricultural year 1948-
49.
(i) In the Central Provinces to the payment of land
revenue equal to the amount of Kamil-Jama as
revised by the Central Provinces Revision of the
Land Revenue of Estates Act, 1947, or by the
Central Provinces Revision of the Land Revenue of
Mahals Act, 1947, as the case may be."
736
The Legislature however thought it fit to mitigate the
rigour in certain specific cases by making a provision in
sub-s. (1) of s. 5 that any person adversely affected by the
provisions of s. 3 may apply to the Deputy Commissioner of
the district for the award of a grant of money or pension,
and sub-s. (2) thereof provides that the Deputy Commissioner
shall forward the application to the State Government, which
may pass such orders as it deems fit. Sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of
the Act provides:
"5 (3) The State Government may make a grant of
money or pension:-
(i) for the maintenance or upkeep of any religious,
charitable or public institution or service of a
like nature, or,
(ii) for a suitable maintenance of any family of a
descendant from a former Ruling Chief."
In sub-s. (4) of s. 5 of the Act, any amount sanctioned
by way of grant of money or pension under this section shall
be a charge on the revenue of the State.
The expression "Ruling Chief" has not been defined in
the Act and must therefore be understood as in common
parlance. The meaning of the word "Ruler" as given in
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edn., vol. 2, p. 1867
is: "one who, or that which, exercises rule, especially of
supreme or sovereign kind". Normally the expression "Ruling
Chief" connotes "a person who is endowed with the content of
sovereignty and also has the attributes of a sovereign".
According to Blacks’ Legal Dictionary, 5th edn., p. 1252 the
legal conception of "sovereignty" is stated thus:
"The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power
by which any independent state is governed; supreme
political authority, paramount control of the
constitution and frame of government and its
administration; the self-sufficient source of political
power from which all specific political powers are
derived; the international independence of a state,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18
combined with the right and power of regulating its
internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a
political society, or state, which is sovereign and
independent."
737
"Sovereignty" means "supremacy in respect of power,
dominion or rank; supreme dominion authority or rule".
"Sovereignty" is the right to govern. The term "sovereignty"
as applied to states implies "supreme, absolute,
uncontrollable power by which any state is governed, and
which resides within itself, whether residing in a single
individual or a number of individuals, or in the whole body
of the people." Thus, sovereignty, according to its normal
legal connotation, is the supreme power which governs the
body politic, or society which constitutes the state, and
this power is independent of the particular form of
government, whether monarchial, autocratic or democratic.
According to Laski in "A Grammar of Politics", 1957
Reprint Chap. II, p. 50
"The legal aspect of sovereignty is best examined
by a statement of the form given to it by John Austin.
In every legal analysis of the State, he argued, it is
first of all necessary to discover in the given society
that definite superior to which habitual obedience is
rendered by the mass of men. That superior must not
itself obey any higher authority. When we discover the
authority which gives commands habitually obeyed,
itself not receiving them, we have the sovereign power
in the State. In an independent political community
that sovereign is determinate and absolute. Its will is
illimitable because, if it could not be constrained to
act, it would cease to be supreme, since it would then
be subject to the constraining power. Its will is
indivisible because, if power over certain functions or
persons is absolutely and irrevocably entrusted to a
given body, the sovereign then ceases to enjoy
universal supremacy and therefore ceases by definition
to be sovereign."
It is not necessary to enter into the concept of
sovereignty, one of the most controversial ideas in
political science and international law, which is closely
related to the difficult concepts of State and Government,
of independence and democracy, except to touch upon the
juristic character of the Indian State to discern the
necessary attributes of sovereignty. The Indian States were
neither independent nor sovereign but subject to the
paramountcy of the British Crown. Sir William Lee Warner,
the acknowledged authority on Indian States, in his work
"The Native States of India; 1910"
738
characterizes them as "semi-sovereign". There is no question
that there was a paramount power in the British Crown, but
perhaps it is better understood and not explained. The
indivisibility of the sovereignty on which Austin insists,
did not belong to the Indian system of sovereign states.
The degree of sovereignty exercised by the different
rulers varied greatly as the areas under their dominion. The
greater princes administered the internal affairs of their
states with almost complete independence, having revenues
and armies of their own, and the power of life and death
over their subjects. At the other end of the scale were
petty chiefs with a jurisdiction hardly higher than that of
an ordinary magistrate and between these extremes lay much
gradation. The authority of each ruler was determined by
treaties or engagements with the British Government or by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18
practice that had grown up in the course of their relations
with British India. The paramount power was with the British
Crown and it had never parted with any of its prerogatives.
As Sir Henry Maine said:
"There may be found in India every shade and
variety of sovereignty, but there is only one
independent sovereign, the British Government. ...The
mode or degree in which sovereignty is distributed
between the British Government and any Native State is
always a question of fact which has to be separately
decided in each case, and to which no general rules
apply."
After the constitution of the Central Provinces in 1861
A.D., fifteen of the Zamindaris were considered to be of
sufficient importance to warrant their being constituted
Feudatory States. They were: Nandgaon, Korea, Bastar,
Raigarh, Sarguja, Khairagarh, Kanker, Jashpur, Kawardha,
Sarangarh, Udaipur, Sakti, Chhuikadan, Makrai and
Changbhakar. These fifteen Feudatory States are specified in
the First Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935.
Timarni was not so listed in the First Schedule as it was a
Jagir and not a Feudatory State.
The cardinal question on which the decision of the
appeal must turn is whether the appellants are the
descendants of a former Ruling Chief within the meaning of
cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act and are therefore
entitled to the grant of money or pension in
739
terms of the section. That depends on whether the ancestors
of the appellants had acquired the attributes of sovereignty
in relation to the jagir of Timarni granted by the Peshwa
Madhavrao to two of their ancestors Naroo Bullal and his
brother Ramchandra Bullal’s grandson Madhav Rao in 1717 A.D.
As hereinbefore adumbrated, the appellants rested their case
before the State Government on the sanad of the Peshwa in
1777 A.D. in respect of the jagir of Timarni. It does not
appear from the impugned order of the State Government that
there is any error of jurisdiction in refusing to grant
money or pension to the appellants under cl. (ii) of sub-s.
(3) of s. 5 of the Act or any incorrect determination of the
basic facts on their part in reaching the conclusion that
the appellants’ ancestors never exercised sovereign powers
of a Ruling Chief in relation to the jagir of Timarni
granted by the Peshwas and later confirmed by the Scindias
and continued by the British at the request of the Scindias.
There can be no doubt that the ancestors of the
appellants exercised considerable power and authority in the
Narbada Valley at a certain period of time. The description
of the family as extracted from the Hoshangabad Gazetteer,
1908, at pp. 97-98, reads:
"The most important Brahman family is that of the
Bhuskute, who hold the Timarni Estate as well as
considerable property in the Nimar District and in
Holkar’s territory. The family is about 150 years old
and originally came from the Ratnagiri District in the
Bombay Presidency. Its founders were the two brothers,
Ramchandra Ballal and Naro Ballal, who five generations
ago, took service under the Peshwas. The brothers
subjugated the country west of the Ganjal, which was
then called the Handia Sarkar, and forced the Makrai
Raja to surrender half his territory. The sternness
with which they repressed the wasting raids of the
aboriginal tribes, earned them the name of Bhuskute, or
"Chopper". Kurhade or axemen, is another name by which
the family is sometimes known, and the axes which are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18
said to have been the instruments of execution are
still preserved at Khargaon and duly worshipped at the
Dasahra festival by the Bhuskute and their retainers.
In reward for these services the brothers received in
1751 the hereditary offices of Sir Mandloi and Sir
Kanungo in the Sarkars of Bijagarh and Handia, with
villages and tracts of
740
land rent-free, percentages on the revenue, and rights
of taxation. The Bhuskute proved as successful in peace
as they had been in war, keeping the country in order,
and settling cultivators from Khandesh in the
uninhabited parts. In 1777, the Peshwa Madho Rao gave
them the fort of Timarni as a permanent jagir. Dault
Rao Sindhia subsequently added two neighbouring
villages and two more were acquired either by force or
gift from the Raja or Makrai, the five villages forming
a semi-independent jagir. Until the thirty years’
settlement, the kiledar or "holder of the fort" at
Timarni exercised jurisdiction in civil, criminal,
revenue and other petty cases. These powers were
withdrawn at settlement, but the estate continued to be
held in jagir until the settlement of 1891-96, when the
villages were registered as muafi or revenue-free,
though the honorary title of jagirdar was still allowed
to be retained."
The history of the matter goes to the middle of the
18th century. In 1742 A.D., the Peshwa Balaji Bajirao
invaded the ancient kingdom of Garha-Mandla and exacted the
tribute of chauth or one-fourth of the revenue, amounting to
4 lakhs of rupees. He took the fort and killed the Ruler of
Garha-Mandla. From this time the Mandla kingdom lay at the
mercy of the Marahtas. The Peshwa marched up the valley on
his way from Burhanpur to attack Mandla and subdued Handia
Paragana. The predatory Maratha troops plundered, burnt and
looted the entire Narbada valley. Col. Sir W.H. Sleeman
remarks that:
"By this dreadful invasion of the Peshwa with his
host of followers, the whole country east of Jubbulpur
was made waste and de-populate."
The Mughal power was effectively driven out and we hear no
more of a Muhammadan Governor of Harda Handia; but his place
was taken by the two brothers Naroo Bullal and Ramchandra
Bullal, who were left by the Peshwa in charge of the Handia
Sarkar, which had been rendered desolate in consequence of
the inroads of marauders and dacoits and were abounding in
dense thick jungles. They were the Amils of the Peshwa and
held the Harda
741
Handia tract on Amanat system remitting to the headquarters
the whole collection, minus expenditure. It seems that they
picked up a quarrel with the Ruler of Makrai and as he was
unable to make any resistance they forced him to sign a
treaty in 1750 A.D. giving up half his dominion.(1) They
appeared to have done loyal and good services to the Peshwa
by their administrative abilities in keeping the territory
in good order and in settling cultivators from Khandesh in
the uninhabited parts by clearing the jungles.
In reward for their loyal services, the two brothers,
Naroo Bullal and Ramchandra Bullal, received in 1751 A.D. a
sanad from the Peshwa Balaji Bajirao by which they were
conferred the title of "Bhuskute" and were made sur-mandloi
and sur-kanungo. They were created watandars with the
reservation of sur-deshmukhi in respect of 22 mahals in
Sarkar Handia rent-free in perpetuity with right to retain
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18
4% of the revenue: 2.5% on account of sur-mandloi-ship and
1.5% on account of sur-kanungoship, and rights of taxation
etc. By a separate sanad of 1751 A.D. the Peshwa appointed
them sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo and created watandars in
respect of 32 mahals in Sarkar Bijagarh, with the
reservation of surdeshmukhi, with the same percentage of
revenue and similar rights. They appeared to have done good
service to the Peshwas not only in shearing Ruler of Makrai
but in keeping the country in good order and in settling
cultivators from Khandesh in the uninhabited parts. Both
these sanads show that the Peshwa made the grants in
recognition of their loyal services. The documents contain a
recital more or less to the effect that:
"The two brothers presented themselves at the
court of the Peshwa and petitioned for grant of watans
as a reward as they had by their military skill and
courage and also by their administrative abilities
cleared these tracts which had been rendered desolate
in consequence of in roads of marauders and dacoits and
were abounding in dense thick jungles, and made them
safe for habitation."
It appears that Naroo Bullal and Ramchandra Bullal
remained
742
the Amils or Governors of the Peswha at Handia till 1768
A.D. and in the meanwhile they were granted by the Peshwa
Balaji Bajirao inams of villages Pokharni and Masangaon by
two sanads in 1754 A.D., and similar inams of villages
Dhupkaran, Underkuch and Samarda by three sanads of 1759
A.D. from out of the 431 villages surrendered by Ruler of
Makrai.
There was a twilight zone after 1750 A.D. and very
little is known about the Harda Handia tract. It will
presently be seen that the sanad of 1777 A.D. granted by
Peshwa Madhavrao and the subsequent sanads of 1798 and 1800
A.D. granted by Peshwa Bajirao II on which the appellants
strongly rely are of little or no assistance as by then the
supremacy of the Peshwa over the Narbada valley was on the
decline.
It appears that the Narbada valley had gone out of the
control of the Peshwas by 1797 A.D. With the fluctuating
fortunes of the Peshwas the ancestors of the appellants were
virtually denuded of all their powers. The annihilation of
the Maratha army at the hands of Ahmed Shah Durrani in the
third battle of Panipat in 1761, followed by the premature
death of the Peshwa Balaji Bajirao in the same year seemed
to foreshadow the immediate dissolution of the Maratha
empire. There followed a sudden revolt against the Maratha
domination everywhere in Hindustan. The eclipse of the
Maratha power naturally cast its shadow on the Harda Handia
tract; and the Ruler of Makrai thought to improve the
occasion by driving out the Amils of the Peshwa out of
Handia, but he was himself repulsed and killed by a force of
Goshains.
In or about 1750 A.D. Raghuji Bhonsle of Nagpur overran
the whole range of hills from Gawilgarh to Mahadeo, and
reduced the country east of Handia and south of the Narbada
except the portion held by Bhopal. Hostilities between the
Bhopal and Nagpur rulers commenced in 1795 and lasted with
little intermission for twenty years. Hoshangabad was in
that year taken by the Nagpur troops, but was retaken in
1802 by Wazir Muhamad,
743
the celebrated minister of Bhopal. The Bhopal dominions
north of the Narbada were finally lost to the Marathas in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18
1808. During these wars the Pindaris, first summoned by
Wazir Muhammad to his assistance, but afterwards deserting
to his enemies, plundered the country impartially in all
directions. It is estimated that not a single village
escaped being burnt once or twice during the fifteen years
for which their depredations lasted, and the greater part of
Sarkar Handia was entirely depopulated. The Pindaris were
extirpated in 1817; and in 1818 the portions of the district
belonging to the Nagpur kingdom were ceded, under an
agreement subsequently confirmed by the treaty of 1826. In
1844 the Harda Hadia tract was made over by the Scindia in
part payment for the Gwalior Contingent, and in 1860 it was
permanently transferred and became British territory:
After the crushing defeat of the Maratha army by Ahmed
Shah Durrani in the third battle of Panipat in 1761 A. D.
the Peshwas never crossed the Narbada valley. There was an
intense struggle between Mahadji Scindia and Jaswantrao
Holkar to gain control over the valley. In Central India,
these two military leaders alternately held the pre-
eminency. Mahadji Scindia utilised the fiction of his
sovereignty created by the Treaty of Salbai in 1781 A.D. to
gain his supremacy. By 1792 A.D. he had established his
ascendancy and his power in Northern India reached its
meridian splendour.
During this turbulant period, the Harda Handia tract
passed through several hands. There is not much history
attaching to it. It appears that between 1769 and 1782 A.D.,
Rudraji Khunderao was the Amil or Governor of the Harda
Handia tract. Between 1782 and 1789 A.D. he was succeeded in
that office by Unna Sahib. From 1790 to 1796 A.D. Daulatrao
Scindia made his servant Jaswantrao Sewajee the Amil or
Kamavisdar of the Harda Handia tract. It appears that the
Peshwas were successful in installing the appellants’
ancestor Krishna Rao Ramchandra
744
as his Amil from 1797 to 1799 A.D., but there was a break in
1800 A.D. In 1800 A.D., Balaji Chimanjee was the Governor.
Between 1801 A.D. and 1802 A.D., the Scindia’s servant
Jaswant rao Sewajee again became his Governor. The reason
for the change is apparent. In 1801 A.D. Jaswantrao Holkar
appears to have burnt and plundered Harda but in 1803 A.D.
Daulatrao Scindia halted at Handia for the whole rainy
season. In the same year i.e. in 1803 A.D. the territory was
ceded by the Peshwa to the Scindia and called by him as the
Panch Mahal.
Viewed in this historical perspective, the appellants’
pretensions that their ancestors acquired the attributes of
sovereignty in relation to the Jagir of Timarni, can hardly
be accepted. It appears that the two of the ancestors of the
appellants Naroo Bullal and his brother Ramchandra Bullal’s
grandson Madhavrao presented themselves at the court of the
Peshwa Madhavrao after having lost their position and power
as sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo in Sarkar Handia and the
Peshwa by the sanad of 1777 A.D. created them the Jagirdar
of Timarni with permission to keep their gadhi at Timarni.
It recites that the Peshwas being pleased with their loyal
services had granted to them watans in Handia Sarkar and
that they had renovated the gadhi i.e. fort at Timarni which
was lying in a dilapidated state, and it was felt that there
should be strong fortress for their use as a residence and
therefore they were given the inam of village Timarni
together with the gadhi with sur-deshmukhi in perpetuity. As
already stated, the appellants’ ancestor Krishnarao
Ramachandra became the Amil or Governor of the Peshwa
between 1797 and 1799 but he was again replaced by Daulatrao
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18
Scindia’s servant Jaswantrao Sewajee from 1801 to 1802.
Thereafter, the Harda Handia passed under the control of the
Scindias.
Much stress is however laid on the two sanads of 1798
1800 A.D. issued by the Peshwa Bajirao II for the submission
that the ancestors of the appellants as Jagirdars of Timarni
had acquired the status of a feudatory chief in relation
thereto. We are afraid the contention cannot be accepted. By
1797 A.D. the
745
Scindias had made an inroad into the Harda Handia tract and
evidently the appellants" ancestors found it difficult to
administer the territory. The sanad of 1798 A.D. issued by
the Peshwa Bajirao II permitted them to maintain Shibandi
irregular soldiery, and sipahis equipped with chapdas
(breast plates) armed with weapons for making recovery of
taxes and cesses, but the grant was with the condition that
in both the mahals the irregular soldiery in any case should
not exceed 100 in number without permission. This only
showed the grant of permission to keep a chowkidari force
for collection of revenue. The subsequent sanad of 1800 A.D.
contains a recital that the ancestors of the appellants
presented themselves at the court of the Peshwa Bajirao II
and complained that the Scindia had deployed his own
officers in Sarkar Handia and created several muafidars,
inamdars and saranjamis who were creating obstructions to
the enjoyment of their rights and on their protest they had
been ordered to get a confirmatory letter from the Peshwa.
After the sovereignty had passed to the Scindias,
Daulatrao Scindia by the two sanads of 1802 and 1804 A.D.
described the appellants’ ancestors as sur-mandloi and sur-
kanungo and granted them an inam of villages Piplia and
Bhaili as Nankar by way of maintenance, in recognition of
their loyal services.
The tenor of all these sanads clearly shows that the
ancestors of the appellants were nothing more than the
Jagirdars of Timarni comprising of Timarni and four other
villages viz Piplia, Bhaili, Samarda, and Underkuch, and
that they had never attained the status of a feudatory or a
tributary Ruling Chief under the sovereignty of the Peshwas
or the Scindias.
After the power of the Scindias was completely
destroyed by the British, Daulatrao Scindia signed the
treaty of Sarje Anjengaon on December 30, 1803 by which he
was obliged to give up his possessions between the Jamuna
and the Ganges etc. i.e. including the Harda Handia tract
known as the Panch Mahals, and soon thereafter by the treaty
of Burhanpur signed on February, 27, 1804 he agreed to
maintain a subsidiary force of the British to be paid for
out of the revenues of the territory ceded by him. In 1844
the Harda Handia tract was made over by the Scindia in part
payment for the Gwalior contingent and in 1860 it was
permanently transferred and became British territory.
746
During the period of management of the territory by the
British, the jagir of Timarni held by the ancestors of the
appellants was continued at the request of the Scindia as
would be clear from the following letter from Secretary to
the Government of North-Western Provinces to the Secretary
to the Southern Board of Revenue, North-Western Provinces
dated July 24, 1860, which is in these terms:
"I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter No. 564, dated the 4th instant, submitting
copies of a correspondence, relative to the Temurnee
Jageer, situated in the Pergunah of Harda in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18
Hoshangabad and held by the Bhooskutta, Kishen Row
Madho, with the Boards recommendation, that the Jageer
may be continued rent free in perpetuity to the family
of the present incumbent, in compliance with a request
to that effect made by the Gwalior Durbar, by whom it
was originally granted.
2. In reply I am desired to intimate that the
Lieutenant Governor is of opinion that, in a
matter of this kind this Government is to a
certain extent bound to confirm to the wishes of
Maharaja Scindia, the country in which the rent
free holding is situated being not assigned and
not ceded to the British.
3. As Maharaja Scindia, had expressed a wish that the
Jageer of Timurnee should be continued rent free
in perpetuity to the Bhooskutta and as
perpetuation seems to be in accordance with the
2nd of the revised rules for Harda Handia, dated
30th May 1834. His Honour has been pleased to
confirm the exemption of the Jageer in question
from demand of revenue in perpetuity."
On December 12, 1860, the Scindia ceded this territory
to the British Government by a treaty of which Art. 3 is as
follows: "The Maharaja transfers to the British Government
in full sovereignty the whole of His Highness possession in
the Panch Mahals and to the south of the river Narbada also
Pargana Kumghar on the Betwa river on the following
conditions: (1) That for the lands transferred by His
Highness, the British Government shall give in exchange
lands of equal value calculated on both sides on the present
gross
747
revenue.....(3) That each Government shall respect the
conditions of existing leases until their expiry, and that
in order that this may be made clear to all concerned, each
Government shall give to its new subjects leases for the
same terms of years and on the same conditions as those
which they at present enjoy. (4) That each Government shall
give to its new subjects sanads in perpetuity for the rent-
free lands-the jagirs the perquisites and the hereditary
claims i.e. haqs and watans) which they enjoy at present
under the other Government."
After the cession of the territory by the Scindia in
1860, the Government set itself to inquire what were the
estates transferred and what were the tenures of their new
subjects. This was necessary, first of all, because as land
of equal value elsewhere was to be ceded to the Scindia, it
was necessary to note the exact value of what had been taken
over, and also because undoubtedly the Government wished to
give effect to the terms of the treaty above quoted and in
particular to the fourth head of cl. 3. There was long and
detailed inquiry by the Government as to the precise
position of the Jagirdar of Timarni. The inquiry dragged on
for some years, but after a full investigation the Secretary
to the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces by his
letter dated March 4, 1865 conveyed the decision of the
Governor General-in-Council to the effect:
"The Governor-General in-Council has been pleased
to rule on the Chief Commissioner’s recommendations
that with the exception of the Chief, the Chief of
Makrai, all the Zamindars are to be regarded and
treated as ordinary British subject.
So far as the Chief Commissioner is aware there is
nothing in the past history or present circumstances of
any of the Pargunna Officials or Jamindars of Nemar
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18
which would in any way be entitled to exercise their
estates any degree of sovereign power."
It would thus appear that the British Government never
recognised the appellants’ ancestor Krishnarao Madho, who
like all other Zamindars and Jagirdars in the Central
Provinces, were laying claim to be recognised as a
chieftain, to be a Ruling Chief.
After a sovereign state has acquired territory, either
by conquest or by cession under treaty or by the occupation
of territory
748
theretofore unoccupied by the recognized Ruler or otherwise,
an inhabitant of a territory can enforce in the municipal
Courts only such proprietary rights as the sovereign has
conferred or recognized. Even if a treaty of cession
stipulates that certain inhabitants shall enjoy certain
rights, that gives them no right which they can so enforce.
The meaning of a general statement in a proclamation or a
treaty that existing rights would be recognised is that the
Government will recognize such rights as upon investigation
it finds existed. The Government does not thereby renounce
its right to recognize only such titles as it considers
should be recognized nor confer upon the municipal courts
any powers to adjudicate in the matter. The principle is so
well-settled that it is not necessary to burden the judgment
with many citations.
In Vajesingji Joravarsingji & Ors. v. Secretary of
State for India in Council Lord Dunedin in a somewhat
similar claim of a taluqdar of the Panch Mahals which was in
the dominion of the Scindia ceded to the British Government
by the treaty dated December 12, 1860, negatived the claim
of the taluqdar to proprietary rights observing:
"When a territory is acquired by a sovereign state
for the first time that is an act of state. It matters
not how the acquisition has been brought about. It may
be by conquest, it may be by cession following on
treaty, it may be by occupation of territory hitherto
unoccupied by a recognized ruler. In all cases the
result is the same. Any inhabitant of the territory can
make good in the municipal courts established by the
new sovereign only such rights as that sovereign has,
through his officers, recognized. Such rights as he had
under the rule of predecessors avail him nothing. Nay
more, even if in a treaty of cession it is stipulated
that certain inhabitants should enjoy certain rights,
that does not give a title to those inhabitants to
enforce these stipulations in the municipal courts. The
right to enforce remains only with the high contracting
parties. This is made quite clear by Lord Atkinson
when, citing the Pongoland case of Cook v. Sprigg L.R.
42 IA 229, 268 he says: "It was held that the
annexation of territory made an act of state and that
any obligation assured under the
749
treaty with the ceding state either to the sovereign or
the individuals is not one which municipal Courts are
authorized to enforce."
The burden of proving that after cessation of the
territory by the Scindias to the British by the treaty of
December 12, 1860 the British Government acknowledged or
recognized the existence of any sovereign rights with the
ancestors of the appellants was upon them and that burden
they have failed to discharge.
The historical material on which reliance is placed is
not of much legal significance. In the Central Provinces,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18
the Zamindari or Jagirdari estates had nothing to do with
Revenue-farming. They were simply the estates of chiefs or
barons of the old Gond kingdoms. When these kingdoms were
conquered by the Marathas, the main portions became the
Khalsa, or directly managed lands, of the conquerors. The
old ’baronial’ territories being in the hills on the
outskirts of the Maratha domain, were not productive of much
revenue; they were therefore let alone, the chiefs being
made to pay a moderate tribute. This position was maintained
under the British Government. The estates were subjected to
a general kind of Revenue Settlement, which varied in form
(and in degree of detail) in different districts, and
according to the rank and circumstances of the chief or
landlord.
The Settlement of 1863 by Sir Richard Temple, Chief
Commissioner of Central Provinces recognised the Malguzars
as virtually landlords. The recognition of proprietary
rights was absolute and unreserved. It was not the creation
of a new right, but the recognition, by the Government, of
the state of things which had existed in practice. The
principle so clearly established in the Settlement of 1863
was subsequently departed from and although the Malguzars
were treated to be proprietors and they became mere
intermediaries to whom the Government looked for collection
of land revenue.
The historical material pertaining to the period from
1844 to 1860 A.D. when the Scindia had ceded the territory
to the British and the period thereafter i.e. the period
from 1860 till the settlement of the Hoshangabad District in
1865 is of no
750
legal consequence. They are undoubtedly historical documents
of great importance but are not sufficient to form a basis
for the conclusion that the ancestors of the appellants were
the Ruling Chiefs of Timarni. First of these was the letter
of Lt. Col. Sir W.H. Sleeman, Agent to the Governor General,
dated June 3, 1847 treating the Jagirdar of Timarni at par
with the Chief of Makrai and by which he ordered that there
should not be any interference with the revenue management
of the Makrai and Timarni estates and all questions relating
to transfer of leases, suits for rents, ejectments etc.
should be left to the Chiefs as hithertofore. This was a
letter written when the territory was placed under the
Deputy Commissioner of Hoshangabad subject to the control of
Agent to the Governor General. Next is a letter from the
Deputy Commissioner, Hoshangabad dated July 16, 1860 on a
complaint by the kiledar of the Bhuskutes directing the
Settlement Officer that he would cause the survey, and if
any commenced, to be discontinued, "as we cannot in any way
interfere with the Bhuskute Jagir". We have already referred
to the important letter dated July 24, 1860 from the
Secretary to the Government, North-western Provinces to the
Secretary to the Southern Board of Revenue, North-Western
Provinces, which brings out the real status of the ancestors
of the appellants as a Jagirdar.
In Sir Richard Temple’s "Report on the Zamindaris and
other petty Chieftains in the Central Provinces" submitted
by him to the Government of India in 1863, there is a letter
by Hector Mackenzie, Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of
the Central Provinces addressed to the Government of India
dated October 31, 1863. He traced the history of the
ancestors of the appellants and then went on to say that
they ruled over the territory. We think it necessary to
extract the relevant portion thereof which runs as follows:
"The title of Bhooscutta was given by the Peshwa
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18
to officers sent to clear jungles and cultivate waste
lands, and one of these the founder of the family under
notice was sent to Hurda where he brought much land
under cultivation, and was high officer
It appears that in Peshwa’s time the Bhooscutta
’ruled’ in Hurdah, and when Scindia obtained possession
he gave
751
a grant of five villages, Timurni, Bhaili, Oondrakutch,
Samurdha, and Tupcurn to the family in perpetuity; and
until the cession of Hurdah to the British Government,
the Bhooscutta was under the supervision of the
Political Agent at Bhopal (Sehore) and quite
independent.
When Hurdah was ceded, Timurni was placed under
the Deputy Commissioner of Hoshangabad, subject to the
Commissioner of these territories, and the late
Commissioner and Agent to the Governor General Sir W.
Sleeman, ordered that the Bhooscutta should not be
interfered with in any way except in heavy criminal
cases and such is still the practice."
His subsequent letter to the Commissioner Saugar Division
dated December 2, 1863 reads:
"I am directed by the officiating Chief Commissioner to
inform you, that the Timurnee Estate being held in
Zamindaree tenure, i.e. it is a petty chieftaincy the
villages comprised in it need not be measured by the
settlement officer, nor should any cesses be levied.
This Estate forms one of three Muckrai, Timurnee,
Pitera, in your Divisions which are petty Chieftaincies
and in respect of which the orders of the Government
have been solicited in detail, when they are received
they will be communicated."
Then there is the letter from the Settlement
Commissioner, Central Provinces to the Settlement officer,
Hoshangabad dated August 4, 1865 directing him to take the
necessary measures for completing the regular settlement of
the Timarni jagir with all practical despatch. It was
mentioned that although the jagir had been released in
perpetuity, the chief object of making the assessment was to
fix the Jamas on which the percentage due on account of
cesses and other taxes were to be fixed. This was followed
by a letter from the officiating settlement officer to the
appellants’ ancestor Krishnarao Madho dated August 19, 1865
informing him that there should be no apprehension about the
settlement operation in progress, that the object of the
Government was only to ascertain the area and capacity of
the villages.
Sir Charles Elliot’s Settlement Report of the
Hoshangabad District of 1865 records that Naroo Bullal and
Ramchandra Bullal
752
made sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo by the Peshwa of the whole
22 paraganas of the Handia Sarkar i.e. they were paragana
officials. He went on to observe that the appellants’
ancestor Krishenarao Madho was a "semi-dependent" jagirdar
of Timarni comprising of five villages, but-as regards rest
of his holdings a service muafidar. He states that all of
these villages were given to the appellants’ ancestors rent-
free in perpetuity to meet expenses incurred for the office
of sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo which the Peshwa had bestowed
on him.
After a full investigation into title, the Governor
General in Council came to a decision that all Zamindars in
the Central Provinces, including the ancestors of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18
appellants, had to be regarded and treated as ordinary
British subjects.
It is abundantly clear from what has been set forth
above that although the Government officials took great
pains to determine what was the position of the jagirdar of
Timarni, the Government ultimately came to the conclusion
that he held the status of an ordinary British subject and
was not a Feudatory Chief exercising any sovereign powers.
In Kunwarlal Singh v. Provincial Government, Central
Provinces & Berar, similar contentions were raised. In that
case, the plaintiffs who were the Zamindars of Kamtha, Wadad
and Deori Kishori known as Wainganga Zamindars and that of
Palasgarh governed by what was known as the Chanda Patent,
challenged the validity of the Central Provinces and Berar
Revision of the Land Revenue of Estates Act, 1939 which
provided for an increase in the levy of tokoli as beyond the
legislative competence of the then Provincial Legislature
since it amounted to acquisition of land without payment of
compensation. They claimed that they enjoyed sovereign or
quasi-sovereign status and takoli was in the nature of a
tribute. Both the contentions were rejected. It was held by
Vivian Bose, J. that takoli was land revenue and that the
Zamindars were nothing more than ordinary British subjects
and therefore liable to pay land revenue like any other
subject.
753
The Zamindars of Central Provinces like the appellants
here had twice carried the matter right upto the Privy
Council in assertion of their claim that they were Feudatory
Chiefs, but the Judicial Committee classed them as ordinary
British subjects. In Bir Bikram Deo v. Secretary of State
for India in Council the Privy Council was dealing with the
Zamindars in the Raipur District of the Central Provinces.
Their status was the same as that of the Wainganga Zamindars
and they were governed by what was known as the Chanda
Patent, which gave them a status higher than that of other
Zamindars. In Martand Rao v. Malhar Rao, the Judicial
Committee was dealing with Kampta zamindari in Waingana and
the claim was that the estate was in the nature of a Raj. In
both the cases, reliance was placed on certain historical
material, including Sir Richard Temple’s "Report on the
Zamindaris and other Petty Chieftains in the Central
Provinces" where he described Wainganga Zamindars governed
by the Chanda Patent, generally as "Dependent Chiefs". The
Judicial Committee while rejecting the contention that the
zamindars were petty Chieftain having attributes of
sovereignty, observed:
"It appears, moreover, from Sir Reginald
Craddock’s note, that after a good deal of
correspondence between Sir R. Temple, as Chief
Commissioner of the Central Provinces, and the
Government of India, it was finally decided that only
holders of certain estates should be recognized as
feudatories, and all others as ordinary subjects.
Sanads were granted the former, expressly mentioning
that the succession was in their case to be a single
heir. That provision was omitted in the case of sanads
to most Zamindars of the second class, including the
Amgaon zamindar, though with regard to some others like
Chanda that provision was expressly attached."
While coming to that conclusion, the Judicial Committee
observed that:
"There are passages here and there both in Sir
Richard Jenkins report and Sir R. Temple’s report which
speaks of all these zamindaris indiscriminately as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18
chiefs or chieftains,
754
but that.. they could possibly be classed category of
sovereign or semi-sovereign chiefs whose possessions
were necessarily impartible".
In Vajesingji Joravarsingji & ors. v. Secretary of
State for Indian in Council (supra), Lord Dunedin while
dealing with the historical material had said:
"The view of the officials of the Government as to
that would influence them to make up their minds as to
what title should be given or recognized, but even
then, as far as their Lordships are concerned, it is
what they did after investigation, not what they
thought at investigation, that is matter of moment."
In conclusion, it must be held that the appellants were
not entitled to any money or pension under cl. (ii) of sub-
s. (3) of s. 5 of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation
of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948, not being "the
descendants of a former Ruling Chief" in terms of that
section.
The result therefore is that appeal must fail and is
dismissed with costs.
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.
755