SARDAR GOVINDRAO & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 07-05-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• -
...... 
• 
729 
SARDAR GOVINDRAO & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
May 7, 1982 
[D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] 
C~ntr~iProvlncet & Berar Revocation of Lantf. Re~enue Exe;,,ptions Act 
1948-Section S(3) {ii)-Grant of money or pension-Persons entitled to-Burden 
of proving that they were descendants. of a Ruling Chief-Rests upon claimants. 
International law-Cessid~-Under treaty-Rights of inhabitants-Ho~ 
,acquired. 
• 
Words atldphrates :-Ruling Chief-Sovereignty-Meaning of. 
In consideration of. the loyal services rendered by them, t_wo remote ances-
tors of the appellants received in 175] a sanad from tbe Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao 
by which they were conferred the tit)e of "Bhuskute" and were made sur m:andloi 
and sur kanungo. Tbdy were created watandars with the reservation of sur ct'esh-
mukhi in respect of certain mahals in Sarkar Handia and in Sarkar Bijagarh, rent .. 
free iii perpetuity with right to retain 4% of t,he revenue.' They remained the 
Amils or Governors of the Pesbwa at Handia till 1768 A.O. In the mean-time 
they were e;ranted inams. of certain villages . 
After th~ defeat of the Maharatta army in the third battle of Panipat in 
'.1761 A.D. the appellants ancestors lost their position and power a.s sur mandloi 
and sur kanungo in Sarkar Handia, By tbe sanad of 1777 the Peshwa created 
them the Jagirdar pf Timarni" cociiprising of Timami and four other villages 
. together with the fort with sur deshrnukhi in perpetuity: The sanad of 1798 
-permitted them to maintain irregular soldiery for rCcovery 'l!'J __ a.xes and cesses. 
The grant of jagir was tater confirmed. by the Scindias and th.is was continued 
by the British. 
After the Scindias ceded the territory in question to the British in 1860, 
the British Go:vernment undertook to recognise and respect the existing rights 
and fitles of its new 1ubjects to their lands. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
After a full inv"!.tigation into the nature of the estates tratlsferred and 
the nature of ·tenur~s of their new su.bjects, the British· Government declared 
· ff 
in 1865 that except "the cbief, the Chief of Makrai, all tb~ zamindars are to be 
\ regarded and treated as ordinary British subje1<t~". The esta\01 in que$tion, which 
\r 
. 
r 
I. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H' 
' 
' 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982) 3 s.c.a, 
were located in the di~tricts of ~oshangabad and Nimar, were held by the 
appellants on favourable terms as Jagirdars, Muafidars and Ubaridara in which 
they enjoyed exemption from payment of land revenue amounting to Rs. 27,895 
per annum. 
• 
Having found that there was no justification for continuing the exemption 
from liability to pay land revenue hitherto enjoyed- by certain famlies in the 
former province of. Central Provinces and Berar, and also _because it resulted in 
Joss tQ the public exchequer, the -provincial legislature passed the Central Pro-
vinces a·nd Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 by which 
all prevalent exemptions from liabiJity to pay land revenue were revoked. 
In their application under section 5(3) (ii) of the Act the appellants clai· 
med that th~ "Bhuskute'' family of Timarni, to which they belonged, were the 
descendants of a former ruling chief and in that capacity they were entitled to a 
substantial grant of money or pension for rilaintenance in terms of section 
5 (3) (ii). 
Rejecting their apPlicatiori the State Government held that the ancestors 
of the appellants were no more than the wat9.ndars of a small territory under the 
Peshwas and later under the Scindias and with the transfer of sovereignty to the 
British -they lost their administrative power and retained only their muafi. It 
accordingly, held that the appellants were not the dsecendants of a former Ruling 
Chief and so were not entitled to the grant ofAtny amount or pension in terms 
of section 5(3) (ii) of the Act. 
The High Court declined to intervene with the order of the State Govern· 
ment on the ground that the appellants never enjoyed any status higher than that 
of a Jagirdar. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : Not being the d.escendants of a former Ruling Chief, the appel· 
lants were not entitled to any money or pension in terms of section S (3) (ii) of 
Central Provinces and.Land Revocation of Land Revenue Act, 1948. [754 D] 
. It does not appear from the impugned order of the State Government 
that there \\•as any error of jurisdiction in .refusing to grant money or pension to 
the appellants u

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