STATE OF GUJARAT versus THAKOR SHRI PRAVINSINHJI BHARATSINHJI & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 15-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
THAKOR SHRI PRAVINSINHJI BHARATSINHJI & ORS. 
MAY 15, 1986 
IR.S. PATHAK AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure: 
Special leave petition-party impleaded as respondent not party 
before Revenue Tribunal and High Court-Whether order impleading 
him amounts to adjudication of his right-Whether can assail the High 
Court order. 
The petitioner was at one time the Ruler of an erstwhile princely 
State which ceded to the Dominion Government in 1948. A Jagirdar, 
who was the owner of a half share in a Jagir of villages contained in that 
princely State, became entitled to compensation for the trees standing 
thereon under the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories and 
Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953. 
Upon an application filed by the Jagirdar, the Jagir Abolition 
Officer awarded Rs. 18,258 as compensation for all the trees standing on 
the jagir and directed that half of it was payable to the Jagirdar and 
that the other half would go to the former Ruler. In appeal, the Gujarat 
Revenue Tribunal determined the total value of all the trees at 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Rs.68,03~, of which half was payable to the Jagirdar. In a writ petition 
F 
the High Court held on July 23, 1975 that the total market value of the 
trees was Rs. 1, 70,540 and the Jagirdar would be entitled to the half 
share with interest thereon from August 1, 1954. 
The petitioner never made any application for compensation on 
the abolition of the jagir and was not a party to the proceedings before 
G 
the Jagir Abolition Officer and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 
During the pendency of the appeal by special leave by the State in 
this Court the application made by the petitioner to be imp leaded as a 
respondent was allowed. That appeal was disposed of in view of the 
decision in State of Gujarat & Ors. v: Gujara{RevenueTribunal & Anr. 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
[ 1976) (3) SCR 565. The petitioner, thereafter, unsuccessfully persisted 
with the State authorities for payment to him of the half share in the 
compensation and ultimately filed the present Miscellaneous Petition 
claiming a sum of Rs.4,80,487. 10. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
It was contended for the State that the mere fact of being im-
pleaded as a respondent in this Court did not entitle the petitioner to 
any part of the compensation awarded by the High Court, that there 
was no adjudication that the other half share belonged to the petitioner, 
and that since the jagir now stood vested in the State of Gujarat, the 
half share passed into the ownership of the State. 
Dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. The order impleading the petitioner as a respondent in 
the appeal did not amount to adjudication on the question whether he 
was the owner of the other half share of the compensation. His presence 
in the array of respondents could not vest any right in him to any part of 
the compensation, for the special leave petition was filed by the State 
against the order of the High Court in a writ petition preferred by the 
Jagirdar, to which the petitioner was not a party. There was no adjudi-
cation by High Court on any claim of the petitioner. The entire con-
troversy before it was between the Jagirdar and the State. I 1058-D) 
2. When the valuation of the Jagirdar's half share was deter-
mined by the High Court, the valuation of the other half share stood 
automatically determined, but there was nothing in that order deter-
mining the ownership of the other half share. I IOSA-B I 
3. The order disposing of the appeal did not confer any right on 
the petitioner in respect of the compensation payable on the abolition of 
the jagir. If that appeal had been allowed in terms of the relief sought 
by the State, it would have resulted in a reduction of the quantum of 
compensation awarded to the Jagirdar and had it been dismissed, the 
quantum of compensation determined by the High Court would have 
stood affirmed. I lOSD-E] 
4. The petitioner will have to establish his title to a half share of 
the compensation in some other proceedings. I lOSG I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition 
H 
No. 5255 of 1986 
I 
I 
STAIB OF GUJARAT v. P.B. THAKOR [PATHAK, J.] 
101 
in 
A 
Civil Appeal No. 1885of1977 
From the judgment and order dated 23.7.75 of the High Court of 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 1636 of 1972. 
B 
M.N. Shroff, for the Petitioner. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, P.H. Parekh and Meeta Singhvi, for the R

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