Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
STATE OF GUJARAT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THAKOR SHRI PRAVINSINHJI BHARATSINHJI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1986
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S.
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S.
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION:
1986 SCR (3) 99 1986 SCC (3) 329
1986 SCALE (1)1268
ACT:
Practice and Procedure:
Special leave petition-party impleaded as respondent
not party before Revenue Tribunal and High Court-Whether
order impleading him amounts to adjudication of his right-
Whether can assail the High Court order.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner was at one time the Ruler of an
erstwhile princely State which ceded to the Dominion
Government in 1948. A Jagirdar, who was the owner of a half
share in a Jagir of villages contained in that princely
State, became entitled to compensation for the trees
standing thereon under the provisions of the Bombay Merged
Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953.
Upon an application filed by the Jagirdar, the Jagir
Abolition Officer awarded Rs.18,258 as compensation for all
the trees standing on the jagir and directed that half of it
was payable to the Jagirdar and that the other half would go
to the former Ruler. In appeal, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
determined the total value of all the trees at Rs.68,039, of
which half was payable to the Jagirdar. In a writ petition
the High Court held on July 23, 1975 that the total market
value of the trees was Rs.1,70,540 and the Jagirdar would be
entitled to the half share with interest thereon from August
1, 1954.
The petitioner never made any application for
compensation on the abolition of the jagir and was not a
party to the proceedings before the Jagir Abolition Officer
and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
During the pendency of the appeal by special leave by
the State in this Court the application made by the
petitioner to be impleaded as a respondent was allowed. That
appeal was disposed of in view of the decision in State of
Gujarat & Ors. v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Anr.
100
[1976] (3) SCR 565. The petitioner, thereafter,
unsuccessfully persisted with the State authorities for
payment to him of the half share in the compensation and
ultimately filed the present Miscellaneous Petition claiming
a sum of Rs.4,80,487.10.
It was contended for the State that the mere fact of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
being impleaded as a respondent in this Court did not
entitle the petitioner to any part of the compensation
awarded by the High Court, that there was no adjudication
that the other half share belonged to the petitioner, and
that since the jagir now stood vested in the State of
Gujarat, the half share passed into the ownership of the
State.
Dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition, the Court
^
HELD: 1. The order impleading the petitioner as a
respondent in the appeal did not amount to adjudication on
the question whether he was the owner of the other half
share of the compensation. His presence in the array of
respondents could not vest any right in him to any part of
the compensation, for the special leave petition was filed
by the State against the order of the High Court in a writ
petition preferred by the Jagirdar, to which the petitioner
was not a party. There was no adjudication by High Court on
any claim of the petitioner. The entire controversy before
it was between the Jagirdar and the State. [105B-D]
2. When the valuation of the Jagirdar’s half share was
determined by the High Court, the valuation of the other
half share stood automatically determined, but there was
nothing in that order determining the ownership of the other
half share. [105A-B]
3. The order disposing of the appeal did not confer any
right on the petitioner in respect of the compensation
payable on the abolition of the jagir. If that appeal had
been allowed in terms of the relief sought by the State, it
would have resulted in a reduction of the quantum of
compensation awarded to the Jagirdar and had it been
dismissed, the quantum of compensation determined by the
High Court would have stood affirmed. [105D-E]
4. The petitioner will have to establish his title to a
half share of the compensation in some other proceedings.
[105G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition No.
5255 of 1986
101
in
Civil Appeal No. 1885 of 1977
From the judgment and order dated 23.7.75 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application
No. 1636 of 1972.
M.N. Shroff, for the Petitioner
Soli J. Sorabjee, P.H. Parekh and Meeta Singhvi, for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J. The petitioner, Shri Virendrasinhji Chauhan,
was at one time the ruler of Chhota-Udepur. The State of
Chhota-Udepur containd the Jagir of villages Gundi and
Kheda, in which a half share belonged to a Jagirdar, Thakor
Shri Pravinsinhji Bharatsinhji of Kadwal (hereinafter
referred to as "the Thakor"). An agrement dated March 19,
1948 was executed between the Governor General of India and
the Raja of Chhota-Udepur. Under that agreement the Raja
ceded to the Dominion Government full and exclusive
authority, jurisdiction and powers for, and in relation to,
the governance of the State and agreed to transfer the
administration of the State to the Dominion Government on
June 10, 1948. In lieu thereof the Raja was entitled to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
receive a privy purse and was entitled to the full ownership
and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from
State properties) belonging to him on the date of the
agreement. He and the members of his family were entitled to
all personal privileges enjoyed by them within or outside
the territories of the State immediately before August 15,
1947. A letter dated October 1, 1948 from Shri V.P. Menon of
the Government of India in the Ministry of States elaborated
on the terms of the agreement and also declared:
"(5) Pensions, gratuities, annnuities, and
allowances granted by the State to the members of
its public services who have retired or have
proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement
before 1st April 1948, as also the enjoyment of
the ownership of Khangi Villages, lands, jagirs,
grants, etc. existing on 1st April 1948 are hereby
guaranteed. This guarantee is without prejudice to
the right of Government of Bombay to issue any
legislation which does not discriminate against
the State and their subjects."
102
As has been mentioned, the Thakor was the owner of a half
share of the Jagir of villages Gundi and Kheda. Under the
provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas
(Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953, he became entitled to
compensation for the trees standing on the lands of the
Jagir. He filed an application for compensation. By an award
dated May 27, 1969, the Jagir Abolition Officer, Baroda held
him entitled to compensation in respect of unreserved trees
only and declared that no compensation was payable in
respect of reserved trees in the Jagir. He fixed the value
of unreserved trees at Rs.2,620 and observed that while half
of the compensation was payable to the claimant the other
half would go to the former ruler of Chhota-Udepur. The
Thakor appealed to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, and the
Tribunal, by its order dated June 9, 1961, remanded the case
to the Jagir Abolition Officer for a fresh determination of
the valuation of unreserved trees, while observing at the
same time that he was not entitled to compensation for
reserved trees. The Thakor filed a writ petition in the High
Court, and on December 16, 1963 the High Court held that he
was entitled to compensation in respect of reserved trees
also. By his order dated September 2, 1967, the Jagir
Abolition Officer awarded Rs. 18,258 as compensation for all
the trees, reserved as well as unreserved, standing on the
Gundi and Kheda Jagir and directed that out of that amount a
sum of Rs.9,129 was to be paid to the Thakor. Dissatisfied
with the award, the Thakor filed an appeal. On March 29,
1968, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal remanded the case to the
Prant Officer with the direction that he should determine
the valuation of the trees on the basis of the evidence on
record. The Prant Officer, Chhota-Udepur made his award on
August 7, 1971 and held that the valuation of all the trees
was Rs.10,134.96 only, of which the Thakor would be entitled
to Rs.5,067.48. The Thakor again appealed to the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the total value
of all the trees was Rs.68,039 of which half was payable to
the Thakor. The Thakor then filed a writ petition in the
Bombay High Court, and on July 23, 1975 the High Court held
that the total market value of the trees was Rs.1,70,540 and
the Thakor would be entitled to the half share of Rs.85,270
with interest at 3 per cent per annum on that amount from
August 1, 1954.
The State of Gujarat obtained Special Leave to appeal
against the order of the High Court. This gave rise to Civil
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
Appeal No. 1885 of 1977. During the pendency of the appeal
an application was made by the petitioner, Shri
Virendrasinhji Chauhan, praying for permission to be
impleaded as a respondent in the appeal. The application was
103
allowed on August 18, 1977 and the petitioner was added in
the array of respondents. In this behalf the record of the
case states:
"Upon hearing the office report and hearing
counsel for the parties, the Court allowed the
application of Maharaja Virendrasinhji N. Chauhan
for being impleaded as a party respondent in this
matter and also directs that non-filing of the
application in the High Court for a certificate to
appeal to this Court is ignored and condoned. The
Court granted Special Leave limited to the
question of solatium and interest and dictated an
oral order dated August 18, 1977 disposing of the
appeal with no order as to costs."
The appeal was disposed of by an order of that date
which reads:
"In view of the decision of this Court in State of
Gujarat & Ors. v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Anr.
the award for solatium is knocked down and
interest will also be awarded in the light of that
judgment. Parties were agreed to this situation in
this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs."
The petitioner applied to the State of Gujarat and the
Collector of Baroda claiming that he was entitled to a half
share in the total amount of compensation, but apparently
met with no success. Accordingly, he applied to this Court
for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court against the
State and the Collector. Meanwhile, the State had field an
application for the amendment of the order of this Court
permitting the petitioner to be impleaded as a respondent in
the appeal. Both applications were disposed of by an order
dated April 4, 1978, which reads:
"We do not think that this is a case where a
contempt proceeding can be started on the
allegation made in the petition. The petitioner
may follow such right as may be available to him
in law for enforcement of the award, decree or
order if there be any in his favour.
Mr. S.T. Desai appearing for the State stated
that he is withdrawing his petition which is filed
for amendment to the order of this Court in C.M.P.
Nos. 6560 to 6571 of 1977."
104
The petitioner persisted with the State authorities for
payment to him of a half share in the compensation, but
having failed to obtain payment he has filed the present
petition claiming that a sum of Rs.4,80,487.10 was payable
to him on account of a half share in the compensation with
interest thereon.
The application is opposed by the State of Gujarat and
the Collector of Baroda. It is disputed that the petitioner
is entitled to any compensation under the order dated August
18, 1977 of this Court disposing of the appeal. It is
contended that the mere fact of being impleaded as a
respondent in this Court does not entitle the petitioner to
any part of compensation awarded by the High Court, which
was concerned solely with adjudicating a dispute between the
Thakor and the State. It is pointed out that the petitioner
had never made an application for compensation on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
abolition of the jagir, and was not a party to the
proceedings before the Jagir Abolition Officer and the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The adjudication by those
authorities determined that a half share belonged to the
Thakor and there was no adjudication that the other half
share belong to the petitioner. On the contrary, it is
asserted, the half share belonged to the erstwhile State of
Chhota-Udepur and on its merger with the then State of
Bombay that half share belonged to the State of Bombay. On
the reorganisation of the States in 1960, when the State of
Gujarat came into existence, the half share passed into the
ownership of the State of Gujarat. Upon the abolition of
Jagirs on August 1, 1954 by the Bombay Merged Territories
and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953, the Jagir of Gundi
and Kheda was abolished and it now stood vested in the State
of Gujarat. It is pointed out further that the inventory of
the private properties of the ruler prepared under the
Instrument of Merger made no reference to the Jagir of Gundi
and Kheda. It is also stated that the application for
modification of the order dated August 18, 1977 impleading
the petitioner was not pressed by the State only because the
petitioner had withdrawn the application for contempt and,
therefore, there was no point in pursuing it.
The question is whether the right of the petitioner to
a half share of the compensation stands determined by the
order dated May 4, 1978 of this Court disposing of the
appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated July
23, 1975 of the High Court. That order was made on a writ
petition filed by the Thakor against the State of Gujarat.
The petitioner was not a party to the writ petition. The
writ petition had arisen on proceedings taken in respect of
the Thakor’s half share in the Jagir and the determination
of the compensation. We have perused the
105
order of the High Court disposing of the writ petition and
we do not find any adjudication on any claim of the
petitioner. The entire controvesy before the High Court was
a controversy between the Thakor and the State. It is true
that when the valuation of the Thakor’s half share was
determined by the High Court in the writ petition, the
valuation of the other half share stood automatically
determined. But there is nothing in the order of the High
Court determining the ownership of that other half share.
There is nothing at all to indicate that the other half
share belongs to the petitioner. As we have seen, the
petitioner applied for being impleaded as a respondent in
the Special Leave Petition, but the order impleading him did
not amount to an adjudication on the question whether he was
the owner of the other half share in the compensation. It
was a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Gujarat
against an order of the High Court passed on the dispute
between the State and the Thakor. The presence of the
petitioner in the array of respondents could not vest any
right in the petitioner to any part of the compensation. If
the appeal was allowed in terms of the relief sought by the
State, it would have resulted in a reduction of the quantum
of compensation awarded to the Thakor. If it had been
dismissed, the quantum of compensation determined by the
High Court would have stood affirmed. There was no scope
anywhere in the appeal for determining whether the
petitioner could claim a part of the compensation.
Upon that ground alone this petition must fail.
If it was permissible to go into the merits of the
claim of the petitioner, it would be necessary to consider
whether any part of the Jagir of Gundi and Kheda belonged to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
the petitioner before the Instrument of Merger and, if it
did, whether under the Instrument of Merger it was included
in the list of private properties of the ruler or was
retained by him under any other provision of the Instrument
of Merger or of law. We find it unnecessary to express any
opinion on this point because, as has been seen earlier, the
petitioner has based his claim on the order of this Court
disposing of the appeal, and that order cannot be said to
confer any rights on the petitioner in respect of the
compensation payable on the abolition of the Jagir. It will
be for the petitioner to establish his title to a half share
of the compensation in some other proceeding.
The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
P.S.S. Petition dismissed.
106