LexSTATE OF ORISSA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 5 S.C.R. 1160 STATE OF ORISSA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Original Suit No. 11 of 1968 MAY 5, 2010 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 131 - Suit under - For a declaration that the disputed area was under administrative jurisdiction of plaintiff- State - Plea that at the time of the creation of' the plaintiff- State, the estate of which the disputed area was part of, was transferred to it - Held: Plaintiff-State failed to establish that D it had ever exercised administrative control over the disputed area after its creation in 1936 - Defendant-State has established its and its predecessor States having administrative jurisdiction over the disputed area - Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936 - E Section 3(2) and I Schedule Part-II. Article 131 - Suit under - Between States - Plea of adverse possession, waiver and acquiescence - Held: Procedural provisions applicable to ordinary civil suits are not F applicable to suits between States - Therefore, the pleas need not be considered. Articles 131, 1 (2) rlw Entry 10 VII Schedule and Article 3 - Suit between States - For a declaration that the disputed area was under administrative jurisdiction of plaintiff-State - G Maintainability of the suit whether barred by Articles 1 (2) rlw Entry 10 VII Schedule and 3 - Held: Maintainability of the suit is not barred because the plaintiff has not sought for increase, alteration or diminishing of any area but only for declaration that it had administrative control over the disputed area - 1160 STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA 1161 PRADESH Entertaining the .suit would not amount to encroachment on A the powers of parliament to alter State boundaries. Article 131 and its proviso - Letter by Madras Government to Orissa Government listing the names of the villages which fell under the respective jurisdictions of the States - Held: The letter cannot be described as the 8 expression 'Other Similar Instruments' as occurring in proviso to Article 131 - It was not issued under the authority of a legislation or subordinate legislation nor was it a document of formal character made under constitutional or statutory authority - Thus original jurisdiction of Supreme Court is not C barred with reference to proviso of Article 131. Article 131 - Suit under - Applicability of provisions of CPC and Limitation Act - Held: the procedural provisions regulating the admissibility of the civil suits are not applicable 0 to suits under Article 131 in strict sense - Hence plea that suit was barred by time and not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 CPC not tenable - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80 - Limitation Act, 1963. Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order 1936 E - Section 3(2), (3) - Dispute between States arising post- independence - Suit under Article 131 - Plea that the suit was barred under the provisions of the Order - Held: The exclusion of judicial scrutiny in the Order which was notified in the pre-independence period cannot be mechanically F carried forward to the post-independence period - Supreme Court jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Article 131 not barred - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 131. The plaintiff-State filed the present suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India against the defendant- G State for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages was part of the plaintiff-State and for declaration that the plaintiff- State has the right to possess the disputed area in exclusion of the defendant. The plaintiff averred in its plaint that the disputed area formed part of Jeypore H 1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R. A (lmpartible) Estate at the time of creation of province of Orissa in 1936 by way of Government of India (Constitution of India) Order 1936 and after abolition of zamindari, the estate became part of State of Orissa; that the Province of Orissa, at the time of its creation, had B included the disputed area as contemplated in the First Schedule, Part I, clause 2 (iv) r/w Section 3 (1) of the Orissa Order; that the disputed area had remained within its administrative jurisdiction when the Province of Orissa was created and later on when the Constitution was C enforced; that the former province of Madras had admitted that the disputed area fell within the administrative ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.