RAJ RAJENDRA MALOJIRAO SHITOLE versus THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT.

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 748 · Decided: 02-02-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
February 2. 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
RAJ RAJENDRA MALOJIRAO SHITOLE 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT. 
RAJA BALBHADRA SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT. 
[MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN c. J., MUKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHUL.\M HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, art. 385-Madhya Bharat Abolition of 
fagirs Act (XXVJII of 1951)-Whether void 
as not passed by a 
validly constituted legislature. 
The decision of the 
Madhya Bharat High Court declaring 
section 4 (1) (g) and sub-els. (iv) and (v) of cl. 4 of Schedule 1 of 
Madhya Bharat Abolition 
of Jagirs 
Act 
(XXVIII of 1951) 
as 
illegal and 
inoperative 
was 
not 
questioned by either 
of 
the 
· parties. 
It was however, contended that the impugned Act 
(XXVIII 
of 1951) 
was void as it was not passed by a validly constituted 
legislature within the meaning of the covenant entered into by 
the Rulers 
of Madhya Bharat as 
the 
provisions of cl. I ( c) of 
Schedule IV of thC covenant for the election of 20 members were 
not complied with. 
Held, that as the Madhya Bharat Legislative 
Assembly 
was 
actually functioning on the 26th janflary, 1950, the validity of the 
Acts passed by it could not be questioned in view of art. 385 of 
the Constitution irrespective of the fact whether it had. been pro-
perly constituted in accordance 
with 
the 
terms 
of the covenant 
or not. 
• 
Scope of articles 379, 382 and 385 discussed. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuR1smcTION : 
Civil 
Appeals . 
Nos. 4 and 6 of 1953. 
Appeals 
under article 
132(1) 
of the Constitution 
of India from the j'udgment and Order dated the 4th 
December, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature of the 
State of Madhya Bharat at Gwalior in Civil Miscellane-
ous Cases Nos. 614 of 1951 and 1 of 1952. 
P. R. Das (B. Sen, with him) for the appellant in 
C.A. No. 4 of 1953. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
749 
Rameshwar Nath for the appellant in C. A. No. 6 
of 1953. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, 
and 
K. A. Chitale, Advocate-General of Madhya Bharat 
(Shiv Dayal, with them) for the respondent. 
1954. February 2. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MAHAJAN C. J.-These appeals preferred on behalf 
of three zamindars of the State of Madhya Bharat 
against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature 
of that State dated the 4th Decqnber, 1952, raise com-
mon constitutional questions and can be disposed of 
by one judgment. 
The State also preferred cross ap-
peals 
against 
the same 
judgment. 
During 
the 
pendency of these appeals, two petitions under article 
32 of the Constitution of India were also made to this 
court to obtain the same relief as was claimed by the 
appellants in their 
respective 
appeals. 
During 
the 
course of the arguments, the counsel appearing for the 
appellant. in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1953 asked leave to 
withdraw the appeal. This was granted and the ap-
peal was dismissed as having been withdrawn. Petitions 
Nos. 116 and 117 of 1953 preferred under article 32 
were also withdrawn and were accordingly dismissed. 
Civil Appeals Nos. 4 and 6 of 1953 were argued before 
us and this judgment concerns them alone. 
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1953, Raj 
Rajendra Maloji Rao Shitole, is the proprietor of exten-
sive landed properties in the State of Madhya Bharat 
comprising 260 villages under different Sanads granted 
to his ancestors by the Rulers of Gwalior from time to 
time. It was alleged by him that his income from 
these properties was in the sum of Rs. 2,61,637 and 
that the 
State of 
Madhya 
l)harat, 
under purported 
exercise of its powers under section 3 of the Madhya 
Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, was about to issue a 
Notification for resumption of all his land. By a peti-
tion dated the 7th December, 1951, 
preferred to the 
High Court he asked for a mandamus to restrain the 
State from issuing any Notification under section 3(1) 
of the Act in respect of his properties and from 
1954 
Rqj RaJtndra 
Malojirao Shitole 
v. 
The State of 
Madhya Bharat. 
Mahajan C. J. 
•954 
Raj Rajendra 
Maiojir® Skitole 
v. 
The Stateof 
Madhya Bharat. 
Mahajan C.J. 
750 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954} 
interfering with rights in the said property. The appel-
lant in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1953 is another Jagirdar of 
the same State. He preferred a similar petition to the 
High Court praying for the same relief. These twe> 
petitions, along with a number of other petitions pre-
ferred under article 226 of the Constitution challeng-
ing the vali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.