LexMADHAORAO PHALKE versus THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 957 provision, the settlement on which this land was held 1960 as inam land must be deemed to have been made under this Chapter and therefore it cannot be said that no Rangildas Varajdas assessment has been fixed under the provisions -of Ch. Khandwala VIII-A in this case. We are of opinion that there is v. no force in this argument. Section 117. R of the Code Collector of SuYa is a deeming provision. Section 52 on the other hand when it says that that section will not apply where Wanchoo J. assessment has been fixed under Ch. VIII-A, refers to actual assessment under Ch. VIII-A and not to what is deemed to be an assessment under that Chapter by virtue of s. 117-R. It is not in dispute that there has in fact been no assessment under Ch. VIII-A in this case. We are therefore af opinion that as the land in this case was not wholly exempt from revenue and as in fact no assessment has been fixed on this land under Ch. VIII-A, s. 52 would apply and the Collec- tor would have power to make an assessment in the manner provided by that section. There is therefore no force· in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal diBmiBBed. MADHAORAO PHALKE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT (B. P. SINHA, C. J., J. 1. KAPUR, ·p. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and K. N. WANOHOO, JJ.) Hereditary Military Pension-Bachat-Right to receive guaran- teed by Katambandis issued by Rulers of Gwalior-If can .be termi- 11ated by executive order-Kalambandis, if existing law-Katamban- dis of r9rn and i935 (Gw.alior)-Constitution of India, Art. 372. The appellant was the recipient of a hereditary military pension called Bachat granted by the Rulers of Gwalior to his ancestors in recognition of military service. The right to receive the said pension was recognised by the Kalambandis of ":I i912 and 1935 issued by the said Rulers. When Gwalior inte- grated wilh Indore and Malwa in i948 to form a union, s. 4 of 122 October 3. 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] 1960 Act No. l of 1948 provided for the continuance of all laws, ordi- nances, rules and regulations having the force of law in the Madha .. ao PhalkeCOvenanting states. After the formation of the State of Madhya v. Bharat under the Constitution, the Government of that State, n, Slal• of which remained liable to pay the said pension, by an executive Madhya Bh"'"' order, terminated the right. The appellant moved the High Court against the said order under Art. 226 of the Constitution and his case was that the right to receive the said pension, having been statutorily recognised by the State of Gwalior, could not be extinguished by an executive order. The Full Bench of the High Court held against him. The question was whether the Kalamhandis of 1912 and 1935, on which the appel- lant rested his case, were existing law within the meaning of Art. 372 of the Constitution. Held, that the question must be answered ·in the affirma- tive No distinction could be made between an executi\·c order and a legislative command made by an absolute monarch, such as the Rulers of the Indian State of Gwalior were, since they have the same force of law, passed in whichever capacity they may be, and govern the rights of the subjects. Ameer-un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, A.LR. 1955 S.C. 352 and Director of EndOlllments, Government of Hyderabad v. Akram Ali, A.LR. 1956 S.C. 60, referred to. Consequently. even supposing that the Kalambandis did not amount to a quanun or law technically so called, they would nevertheless be orders or regulations having the force of law in the State at the material time and would be existing law within the meaning of Art. 372 of the Constitution. Edward Mills Co., Ltd., Beawar v. State of Ajmer, [1955] l S.C.R. 735, referred to. The contents of the two Kalambandis aod the character of their provisions clearly show that they could not be mere administrative orders, and if not statutes, must, in any event, be rules and regulations having the force of law. C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 84 of lll54. Appeal from the judgment and order dated Septem- ber l, 1954, of the former M&dhya Bharat High Court iD Civil Misc. Case No. 11 of 1952. B. Sen, P. V. Sahasrabudhe, B. K. B. Naidu a.nd I. N. Shroff, for the appellant. M. Adhikan, Advowte-General for the State of Madhya PradeJJh, H.J. Umrigar and R.H. Dhehar, for the respondents. \ • \. .• .. , • "\
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.