STATE OF SAURASHTRA versus JAMADAR MOHAMAD ABDULLA AND ORS.

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 03-10-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1'61 
A-fann.Jal .J cin 
v. 
Tht Stott nf Assam 
Smltor .!. 
M1ulhollcar ]. 
IIU 
October 3. 
• 
9i0 
SUPREME COl"'RT REPORTS 
[1962) 
~ocieties is not open to any objection. 
In my vi°'" 
0that was a 1air Order to luwo been made in the 
circumstances of thi11 case. 
I would for these roasons dismiss this pcti-
ti on. 
MuDHOI.KAH, .J.-I agree with the judgment 
<loliv<'red by Sarkar, J. 
BY CovRT-ln accordance with the opinion 
of thP- majority thi8 Writ Petition is allowed with 
costs. 
Petition allowed. 
STATE OF SAURASHTRA 
v. 
JA:llADAR i\fOHA~IAD ABDULLA AND ORS. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SAHKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYA~GAR and 
J. R. l\Iun110LKAH, JJ.) 
Art of Sf(Jte-Junag,zdh State----When integrated into lndia-
l'olitical Queation-RPjerence to Government for opinion-Grant& 
by :Ya.,<W-Re.mmplion hy Adinini•tra/,or-lf en bt challeng•d 
in Municipal courts Government of India Act J9,J6 (26 Geo v. 
Ch .. 2;, "· 5, Ii, 2!19(!). 
The Nawab ofjunagadh State made gt ants of properties 
in favC>ur of the respondents before I 9l7. After India attained 
independence the Nawab fled the country. 
At the request 
of the Nawab's Council the Government of India took over the 
administration of the State and on :\ovember 9, 1947 1 the 
Rt'gional Commissioner assumed charge of the administration 
on behalf of the Government of India. The Regional Commis-
sionc1· appointed an Admini>trator of Junagadh State. 
In 
December 1948, the elected representatives of Junagadh and 
certain other neighbouring States recommended to the Govern· 
ment of India and to the United State that of Saurashtra that 
the States be integrated. Thereafter, the administration of 
.Juna~adh State was integrated with the United State of 
Saurashtra on January 20, 1949. 
On different dates between·......-
November 9. 1947, and January 20, 1949, the Administrator 
passrd ordOJs cancelling the grants in favour of the respondents 
and took pl'Sleuion of the properties. The respondents filed 
civil suits for the recovery of the properties on the ground that 
• 
l -
3 s.c.R. 
SUPRE~ COURT REP0RTS 
911 
they had been taken away without the authority of law. 
The 
appellant contended that the orders made by the Administrator 
arose out of and during an act of State and were not justioiable 
in the municipal courts. The respondent contended that the 
question as to when the change 01•er of sovereignty took place 
was a political question which should be referred to the Govern· 
ment of India for its o,>inion and the Court should abide by 
that opinhn and that the facts of this case showed that there 
was complete change over of sovereignty on November 9, !9t7, 
and the act of State was complete. 
Held, (per C. J., Das and Ayyangar, JJ.) that the impug· 
ned orders arose out of and during an act of State and they 
could not be questioned before municipal tribunals. There 
wa• no change over of de jure sovereignty on November 9, 1947 
\Vhen the 
administration was taken over and Junagadh 
continued to exist as such even after this date. Junagadh \vas 
not a State which acceded to the Dominion nor was its terri-
tory included within the territory of the Dominion as from 
November 9, 1947. It was only on January 20, 1949, that 
the Dominion of India assumed de jure sovereignty over Juna-
gadh by its integration into the United State ofSaurashtra 
and the act of State came to an end. 
It \vas not necessary to 
serk information from the Government of India as to the 
date of the change over as there was no uncertainty about it 
and also as the Government of India had spoken with sufficient 
clarity in the White Paper on Indian States. 
State of Saurashtra v. Memon Haji Ismail llaji, ( l 9GO) 
1 S.C.R. 537 and M/•· Dalmia Dadri Cement Go., Ltd. v. 1'he 
Commissioner of lncome-tai:, (1959) S.C.R. 729, fo!Jowed. 
In re: SouthernRhotlesia, ( 1919) A.O. 211 and Sarnaut 
v. Strickktnd (1938) A.O. 678, referred to. 
Per Sarkar and Mudholkar-, .U· Even, if.it be accepted 
thatJunagadh was annexed on Ncivi;mber 9 
1947 and the 
respondents became citizens of' India, they'cotild ~sert and 
establish in the municipal courts of the new sovereign ·only such 
rights as were recognised by the Indian Dominion. Tho burden 
of showing that they were so recognised lay .on the respondents. 
The orders passed by the Administrator show that far from 
recogI?izing the- grants in-favour of the ·respondents they \Vere 
repudiated. The respondents could not claim the benefit of 
s. 299

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