LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS be for the detenu to show that the order bad gone beyond 1964 the needs of the situation and was therefore contrary to s. 44. a. s. Paruldar No such thing bas been shown in the present cases and we s 1v.M_L . fi d h b d . . . b .d tale 0 anara- are satis e t at t e or ers m queshon cannot e sa1 to go •htra beyond the needs of the situation, even assuming that s. 44 is mandatory as urged on behalf of the appellants and no: merely directory as urged on behalf of the State. The appeals therefore fail and are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed STATE OF GUJARAT v. Wanchoo I. VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA 1964 (B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAII, January SO, J. C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) Act of State-Ruler of a 11ative 1tate granted certain right1 in /ore:ll to gra1ttecs-State merged with Domini'on of India-Dominion of India did not recognise the grant-Effect of non-recognition before Co11sti· tution and after Constitution-If non-recognitio:t of the grant anJounts to an act of State-Government of India Act 1935-Consti- tution of India, Art. 32. The Ruler of the State of Sant bad issued a Tharao dated 12th March 1948, granting full right and authority to the jagirdars over the forests in their respective villages. Pursuant to the agreement dated March 19, 1948, the State of Sant merged with the Dominion of India. On October 1, 1948, Shree V. P. Menon, Secretary to the Government of India, wrote a letter to the Maharana of Sant State expressly declaring that no order passed or action taken by the Maharana before the day of April !st 1948, would be questioned. After merger there was obstruction by the forest officers when the respondents were cutting the forests, but after some correspondence they were permitted to cut the trees on furnishing an undertaking that they would abide by the decision of the government. The Government of Bombay, after considering the implications of the Tharao, decided that the order was ma/a nde and cancelled it on 8th July 1949 In the meantime these respondents were stopped ;rom working the forests by the Government of Bombay. 1964 Stat• of G11iarat Y, Yor11 Fldda/i SUPREME COURT REPORTS Thereupon these respondents filed suits for declaration of rights in the forests and for a permanent injunction against interff.rence with those rights by the State. The respondents claimed in these suits that the rights of the grantees to the forests were not liable to be cancelled by the Domi- nion of India after the merger of the State of Sant in June, 1948, by executive action, and that the Government of Bombay was not compe- tent to obstruct them in the exercise of those rights. Their claims were opposed by the State of Bombay mainly on the ground that in the absence of recognition, express or implied, by the successor State of the rights conferred by the former ruler on the jagirdars the respondents could not enforce them in the Municipal Courts. These respondents qied five suits against the State of Gujarat. All suits except one were dismissed by the Trial Court. The District Judge on appeal ordered the dismissal of that suit also and dismissed the appeals of the plaintiffs in the other suits. The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court and the High Court allowed all appeals and the suits were decreed.' The High Court held on the basis of the letter written by Shri Y. P. Menon, Secretary that the succeeding sovereign had waived or relinquished its right to repudiate the Tharao. The High Court further held that the Tharao was not a legis- lative action of the Ruler of Sant State. The State Government appealed to this Court by special leave. Hence the appeal. Per majority: Hidayatullah J. (i) The Act of State come .. to an end only when the new sovereign recognises either expressly or impliedly the rights of the aliens. It does not come to an end by an action of subordinate officers who hav~ no authority to bind the new sovereign. Till recogni- tion, either express or implied, is granted by the new sovereign, the Act of the State continues. In the present case, the Act of State could only come to an end if Government recognised the rights flowing from Tharao. That Government never did. There was thas no recognition of the Tharao or the rights flowing from it at any time.- In the present case, the subordinate off
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.