MAHARAJA PRAVIR CHANDRA BHANJ DEO KAKATIYA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 18-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
•
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
501 
MAHARAJA PRAVIR CHANDRA BHANJ DEO 
I960 
KAKATIYA 
November rB. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(J AFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL a.nd 
N. RAJAGOPALA AY7ANGAR, JJ.) 
"Ruler"-Recognition by President-Whether ex-Ruler for 
purposes outside the Constitution-Maufidar, Meaning of-Constitu-
tion of India, Art. 366(22)-Madliya Pradesh Abolition of Proprie-
tary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, z950 (M. P. I 
of z95z), s. 2(m). 
The appellant was the Ruler of the State of Baster which 
was later integrated with the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was 
recognised by the President as a Ruler under Art. 366(22) of the 
Constitution. The respondent resumed certain lands belonging 
.to the appellant under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro-
prietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. 
The appellant contended that he was still a Ruler and not an 
ex-Ruler and as such did not come within the definition of "pro-
prietor" given in the Act. 
Held, that the appellant was an ex-Ruler for the purposes 
of the Act and was within the class of persons who were by 
name included in the definition of 'proprietor' and was within 
the scope of the Act. Factually the appellant was an ex-Ruler. 
He was a Ruler for the purposes of the privy purse guaranteed 
to him. 
There was nothing .in Art. 366(22) which required a 
court to treat such a person as a Ruler for purposes outside the 
Constitution. Further, the appellant was also a maufidar in 
respect of the lands acquired which were exempt from the pay-
ment of rent or tax. The expression "maufidar" was not neces-
sarily confined to a grantee from a State or a Ruler of a State; 
he could be the holder of land which was exempted from pay-
ment of rent or tax. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
198 of 1954. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 
16, 1952, of the former Nagpur High Court in Misc. 
Petn. No. 1231 of 1951. 
M. S. K. Sastri, for the a.ppella.nt. 
H. L. KhasMam, B. K. B. Naidu a.nd I. N. Shroff, 
for the respondent. 
-
64 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
1960 
1960. November 18. 
The Judgment of the Court 
Maha..aja Pravir was delivered by 
Chandra Bhan) 
IMAM, J.-This is an appeal from the judgment of 
Deo Kakatiya the Nagpur High Court dismissing the appellant's 
Th ;· 
1 
petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of 
Mad:ya'~'.:a:esh India. The High Court certified under Art. 132(1) of 
· 
_ 
the Constitution that the case involved a substantial 
Imam J. 
question of law as to the interpretation of the Consti-
tution. Hence the present appeal. 
The appellant was the Ruler of the State of Baster. 
After the passing of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, 
the appellant executed an Instrument of Accession to 
the Dominion of India on August 14, 1947. There-
after, he entered into an agreement with the Domi-
nion of India popularly known as "The Stand Still 
Agreement". On December 15, 1947, he entered into 
an agreement with the Government of India whereby 
he ceded the State of Baster to the Government of 
India to be integrated with the Central Provinces and 
Berar (now the State of Madhya Pradesh) in such 
manner as the Government of India thought fit. Con-
sequently the Governments in India came to have 
exclusive and plenary authority, jurisdiction and pow-
ers over the Baster State with effect from January 1, 
1948. 
The Legislature of the State of Madhya Pradesh 
passed the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary 
Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 
(Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951), hereinafter referred 
to as the Act, which received the assent of the Presi-
dent of India on January 22, 1951. The preamble of 
the Act stated that it was one to provide for the 
acquisition of the rights of proprietors in estates, ma-
hals, alienated villages and alienated lands in Madhya 
Pradesh and to make provisions for other matters 
connected therewith. Under s. 3 of the Act, vesting 
of proprietary rights in the State Government takes 
place on certain conditions, mentioned in that section, 
being complied with. The definition of 'proprietor' 
is stated in s. 2 cl. (m) and it is 
"in relation to-
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
503 
(i) the Central Provinces, includes an inferior 
1960 
proprietor, a protected thekailar or other thekai1ar, or 
-.-
. 
protected headman; 
Mahara1a Prav~r 
( .. ) h 
d t 
•t . 
,£.3-
• 
Chandra BhanJ 
u t e merg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.