PREM NATH KAUL versus THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 02-03-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 959 
J'.1arch 2. 
270 
SUPHEME COUHT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
PREM NATH KAUL 
v. 
THE STATE OF JAMM:U & KASHMilt 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAB, 
K. N. WANCHOO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Landed Estate, Abolition of-Validity of enactment-Legislative 
Competency of Yuvaraj Karan Singh-Jamm1' and Kashmir Big 
Landed Estate Abolition Act, XV II of 2007. 
This appeal challenged the validity of the Jammu and 
Kashmir Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, XVII of 2007 which 
was enacted by Yuvaraj Karan Singh on October 17, 1950, in 
exercise of the powers vested in hirn bys. 5 of the Jammu and 
Kashmir Constitution Act 14 of 1996 (1930) and the final procla-
mation issued by Maharaja Hari Singh on June 20, 1949, by which 
he entrusted all his po\vers and function to the Yuvaraj. 
The 
object of the Act was to improve agricultural production by 
abolishing big landed estates and transferring land to the actual 
tillers of the soil. 
The suit out of which the present appeal 
arises was brought by the appellant in a representative capacity 
for a declaration that the Act was void, inoperative and ultra 
vires and that he \Vas entitled to retain peaceful possession of 
his lands. 
Both the trial Court.as also the High Court in appeal 
found against him and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by 
special leave. 
The validity of the Act was challenged mainly on the 
ground that Yuvaraj Karan Singh had no authority to promul-
gate the Act. It was contended that (r) when Maharaja Hari 
Singh conveyed his powers to the Yuvaraj by his proclamation 
of June 20, 1949, he was himself a constitutional monarch and 
could convey no higher powers, (2) the said proclamation could 
not confer on the Yuvaraj the powers ,specified therein, (3) the 
powers of the Yuvaraj were substantially limited by his own 
proclamation issued on November 25, 1949, by which he sought 
to make applicable to his State the Constitution of India, that 
was soon to be adopted by its Constituent Assembly, in so far as 
it was applicable, (4) as a result of the application of certain 
specified Articles, including Art. 370 of the Constitution of India 
to the State of Jammu Kashmir, the Yuvaraj became a constitu-
tional monarch without any legislative authority or powers and 
(5) the decision of the Constituent Assembly of the State not to 
pay compensation \Vas invalid since the Assembly itself was not 
properly constituted. 
Held, that Yuvaraj Karan Singh, when he promulgated 
the Act, had the power to do so and its validity· was beyond 
question. 
(2) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COUR'.1' REPORTS 
271 
It was indisputable that prior to the passing of the Independ-
r959 
ence Act, 1947, Maharaja Hari s;ngh like his predecessors, was 
an absolute monarch so far as the internal administration of his Piem Nath Kaul 
State was concerned. Section 3 of the Regulation l of 1991 
v. 
(1934) issued by the Maharaja not only preserved all his pre-
Th"4State of . 
existing powers but also provided that his inherent right to Jammu & Kash1mr 
make any regulation, proclamation or ordinance would remain 
unaffected. The Constitution Act 14 of 1996 (1939) promulgated 
by him did not alter the position. Sections 4 and 5 of that Act 
preserved all the powers that he had under s. 3 of the Regulation 
l of 1991 and s. 72 preserved his inherent powers so that he 
remained the same absolute monarch as he was before. 
With the lapse of British paramountcy on the passing of the 
Independence Act, 1947, the Maharaja continued to be the same 
absolute monarch, subject to the agreements saved by the 
proviso to s. 7 of the Act, and in the eyes of international law 
could conceivably claim the status of an independent sovereign. 
It was unreasonable to suggest that the provisions of the 
Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja on October 25, 
1947, affected his sovereignty, in view of cl. 6 thereof, which 
expressly recognised its continuance in and over his State. 
There was no substance in the argument that as a result of 
his proclamation issued on March 5, 1948, which replaced the 
emergency administration by a popular interim Government 
headed by Sheik Mohammad Abdullah and constituted a Council 
of Ministers who were to function as a cabinet, the Maharaja 
became a constitutional monarch. The cabinet had still to func-
tion under the Constitution Act 14 of 1996 (1939) under the over-
riding powers of the Maharaja. 
When the Maharaja on June 20, 1949, therefore, issued the 
p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.