LexMAGANBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL versus UNION OLF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MAGANBHAl~HWARBHAIPATEL
v.
UNION Olf INDIA AND ANR.
January 9, 1969
[M. HmAYATULLAH, C.J., '. J. c. SHAH,
V. RAMASWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
ConStitution of Jndia, Arts" 1, 3, 73, 254, Entries
14,
15 List I,
Schedule VII-Award settling disputed boundory-lf constitutional amend-
1nent necess,)ry for ,implementation of award-Implementation of treaties,
and arbitral awards-Boundary dispute, settlement of and cession
of
territory difference between.
The Constitution of India, Art. 1 defines the "territory of India" as
including the territories of the States; and the States and the territories
thereof are as specified in the First Schedule. Article 3 enables Parlia-
ment by law to alter the boundaries of the existing States and it includes
the power to increase the area of any State oc diminish the area of any
State. The power to legislate in re•pect of treaties lies with the Parlia-
ment by virtue of entries 10 and 14 of List I of Seventh Schedule, namely,
"Foreign affairs; all matters which bring the Union into relation with any
foreign country" and "entering into treaties and agreements with foreign
.countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with
foreign countries". Article 253 provides that Parliament has power to
make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for
implementing any treaty. agreement or convention with any other oountry
or countries or any decision made at any international conference, asso-
ciation or other body. Article 73 lays down that the executive power of
the Union shall extend to "the matters with respect to which Parliament
has powet to make laws'' and to "the exercise of such rights, authority
and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue
of any treaty or agree~~nt".
With the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the
lapoe of Paramountcy Of the Crown the State of Kutch merged with the
Dominion of India.
The te1ritory was constituted into a Chief Com-
rrll'ssioner's Province and up- ·er the Constitution, the territory became a
Part C Slate. Its extent was .determined by Part C to Sch. 1 of the Con-
stitution as "territorie$ >vhich by virtue of an order made under s. 290A of
the Government of Intlia A~. 1935, were immediately before the com-
mencement of. the Constituti0n being administered as if they were a Chief
Commissioner's Provil{ce of_ the same name".
Kutch was incorporated
in the State of Bombay by the Stales Reorganisation Act, 1956 and was
included in the new Sta ot Gujarat by the Bombay Reorganisation Act,
1960.
The Great Rann of KUtch lies between the malnland of Sind (now
part of Pakistan) and the mainland of Kutch. For four months in the
year it is mostly under water, for the rest of the year it is marshy land.
From the very nature of the terrain the boundaries of the Rann are shift
ing, its extent depending on the violence of natural element.$ in different
years.
The northern boundary of the Ra.nil, therefore, always remained
ill defined. From 1948 onwards diplomatic notes were exchanged between
the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the boundary between
the two countries in the Gujarat-West Pakistan Sector. The dispute led
to great tension between the two r.ountries resulting in armed conflict in
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MAGANBHAI V. UNION
255
1965. In June 1965 the Governments of India and Pakistan concluded
an agreement for setting up a Tribunal "for determination and demarca-
tion of the border" in the area of Gujarat-West Pakistan. Both Govern-
ments undertook to implement the findings of the Tribunal. The award
to be made by the Tribunal was, it was agreed, to operate as a self execu-
ting arrangement; it was not only to declare the boundary but also to
provide for fixing its location on site. By award dated Febrnary 19, 1968,
the Tribrinal accepted the claim of Pakistan to three sectors and two
inlets in the Rann of Kutch.
The petitioners, who claimed infringement of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution, moved
this Court under Art. 32 to restrain the Government of India from ceding
to Pakistan the territories in the Rann of Kutch awarded by the Tribunal.
None of the petitioners claimed that the award had to be rejected. They
contended that the territories were part of India and had always been so
from the establishment of the two DominExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.