TEJ SINGH RAO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 19-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

TEJ SINGH RAO 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AUGUST 19, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) 
B 
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: 
~ 
Section 12--Lands-Subject-matter of a grant made by fonner nller 
of Princely State-Whether covered by sovereign legislative grant flowing from c 
a sovereign authori~Whether unaffected by Act of Legislature. 
The appellant, a lineal male descendant of one of the Generals of a 
former ruler was holding 294.61 acres of land, which was the subject-mat-
+ 
ter of a grant made by the former ruler at the time of his daughter's 
marriage. The appellant filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra D 
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 without prejudice to 
his claim that the lands were covered by a sovereign legislative grant 
flowing from th·e sovereign authority of the ruler of the erstwhile princely 
State, and as such did not come within the purview of the Act. The Special 
Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) declared 176.91 acres· of the land as 
surplus. The land owner preferred appeal before the State Revenue E' 
~ Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. 
The appellant challenged t~e order of the Special Deputy Collector and of 
the Tribunal before the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the 
~ 
writ petition. Hence the appeal, by special leave. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the grant' in F' 
~ 
question was sovereign legislative grant made by a sovereign ruler; it was 
recognised and continued by the British Government; it was thus a special 
law in favour of General's family, and as this law was existing on the date 
of the commencement of the Constitution of India, it was protected by 
Article 372 of the Constitution and should be deemed to be in force and G, 
could not be abrogated except by an Act of the legislature specially made 
in that respect. 
).... 
Dismissing the appeal,. by Special Leave, this Court 
HELD : The High Court was right in holding that even in the case H 
929 
) 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of a ruler who combined in himself both executive and legislative powers 
)r 
of his Government and was undisputed head of the State, the jurispruden-
tial distinction between legislative enactment and executive action had not 
been obliterated and the question, whether a particular grant was a 
legislative grant or not, depended on the facts and circumstances or each 
B 
case, and that the grant in question was a gift pure and simple and was 
not a legislative Act on the part or the ruler. [934G, 9328-D] 
Umad Mills Ltd. v. U.O./. AIR 1963 S.C.953; State of Gujarat v. Vora 
Fidda Al~ AIR 1964 S.C.1043; Raj Kumar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 S.C. 
~ 
1793; Union of India v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company, AIR 
C 1964 S.C. 1903 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lal Bhargavendra Singh, 
AIR 1966 S.C. 704, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 608 of 
1982. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4/5.12.1979 of the Bombay 
High Court in S.C.A. No. 1252 of 1970. 
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Ranjit Kumar, D.K. Dubey, S.V.Nand, 
V.Balakrishna and Mrs. P.P.Mange for the Appellant. 
E 
R.B. Masodkar and A.S.Bhasme for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Tej Singh Rao is a lineal male descendant of 
-+ 
Pratap Rao Gujar who was one of the Generals of Shivaji the Great. He 
~ 
F 
is holding 294.61 acres of land which is situated in the Bhiwapur Taluk of 
the erstwhile Nagpur State. He filed return under Section 12 of the 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (ceiling on holdings) Act, 1961 (the,Act) 
-~ 
without prejudice to his claim that the lands are covered by a sovereign 
legislative grant flowing from the sovereign authority of Raghoji II, the 
Bhonsle Ruler of Nagpur State, and as such did not come within the 
G purview of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector (Land reforms) declared 
176.91 acres of the land as surplus. The land owner preferred appeal before 
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act. The 
...,/, 
Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Tej Singh Rao challenged the order of the 
Special Deputy Collector and of the Tribunal before the Nagpur Bench of 
H Bombay High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the 
-
TEJ SINGH v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
931 
Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition with A 
costs. This appeal by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.