LexBISWAMBHAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
11162 M/1. Willi11111 JMb & C•. Lia. "· TA1 Sta,. of Billar s. .... J. 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. questions that had been referred and as.it had not in the High Court contended that the Sales Tax Conti- nuance Order, 1950, did not apply to the sales for the reason on which it based itself in this Court. A. ppeal allowed. BISWAMBHAR SINGH AND ORS. STATE OF ORISSA (B. P. SINHA., c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANonoo, K. C. DAS GUI'TA and J. C, SHAH, JJ.) Sortrtign-Zamindar whtther •ov.rtign-Elatu-ln,.,._ mtdiariu-Oonatitutionality of Acl XVII of 1954-TM Oriaao E•lalt8 Abolilion Act, 1962 (Orisaa 61of1962), u. 2 (vJ, 2 (11). When the Orissa Estates Abolition Act came into force in February 1952, the appellants along with another person moved the High C',ourt under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The High Court held that the Act was valid and the lands of the appellants could be taken over by the State. When the case came to this C.ourt in appeal, it held that the Act did not apply to the proprietors of Hemgir and Sarpgarh as they were not intenne- diaries as defined in s. 2 (h) of the Act. The Zamindar of Nagra was held to be an intermediary as he had acknowledged overlordship of the Raja of Gangpur, The Orissa legislature passed Act XVII of 1954 and changed the definitions of 'estate' and 'intermediary' to cover the cases of the proprietors of Hemgir and Sarpgarh. The appellant., the Zamindars of Hemgir and Sarpgarh, moved the High Court for a writ of mandamus against the State of Orissa and the Collector of Sundargarh. The appe- llants claimed sovereign status and contended that the Amend- ing Act did not apply to them, Their petition• ~e dismiaKd 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 363 by the High Court which held that as a result of historical proceu the appellants had lost all vestiges of theiJ sovereignty and become oubject to the laws promulgated by ruler of Gang- pur and when that ruler merged his State with the State ,,f Orissa, the appellants were not better than mere subjects and had absolutely no claims to sovereign power. The other con- tentions raised by the appellants regarding discrimination etc. were also rejected by the High Court. The appellants came to this Court after securing the certificate. Hild, that the appellants or their ancestors had ceased to be sovereigns on the eve of the merger of the State of Gangpur with the State of Orissa and their position was that of inter· rnediaries who held or owned interests in land between the Raiyat and the State and their interests in their lands could be acquired by the State under the Act. Although there was no evidence of actual conquest of the territory of the appcllanll by the Raja of Gangpur or the active imposition of the sovettignty of the Raja over the territories in question, as a matter of fact the former rulers of those territories had submitted to the sovereignty of the Raja as a result of a continuous proceu. The Raja of Gangpur exercised sovereign authority over thooe territories. The outward symbols of sovereignty were that the laws of Gangpur State were in force in Hcmgir and Sarjlgach. The whole of the administrative control wu in the hands of the Raja of Gangpur. Neither in fact nor in law wu there any ":cstigc left of the sovereignty of the appe- llants when the Raja merged his State with the State of Orina. BiatDanlMar Singh v. Slate o/ Oriaaa, [1954] S. C. R. 842, Pl'OrlllJd Ollllnt!.ra Deb v. Slate o/ Oriaaa [196!!] Supp. I S. C. R. 405, Thakur .llfll<Jr Singhji v. State o/ Rajaotlla11, [1955] 2 S. C.R. 303 and .llfll<Jr....;il Singh v. State o/ Pu11jab, [1962] Supp. 3 s. a. R. 346, referred to. CrvIL Al>PBLLA.Tlll jUBISDIOTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 112 and 113 of 1960. Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 25, 1957, of the Orissa High Court in O. J. C. Nos. 164 and 181 of 1954. N. C. Chatt,erjee, M. S. Mohanty, A. N. Sinha and B. P. Maheahwari, for the appellants. 1961 Bino .... lwr SbttA •• St•ll •/ Ori• 1962 BUwam6har Sinth •• Stal1 of Orissa Sinha, C. J, 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 0. B. Agarwala, R. Gopal,akrishnan and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents Nos. I and 2 (in C. A. No. 112/60) and for the respondents (in C. A . No. 113/60). 1962. November 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J.-These two appeals on certificates of fitness granted by t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.