9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Khor Posh grants. 2. Recognition of grants by the new sovereign. 3. Applicability of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947. 4. Legality of the Government's orders stopping the grants. 5. Whether the acts complained of were acts of State. Detailed Analysis: I. Validity of Khor Posh Grants: The petitioners argued that the Khor Posh grants were lawful grants made by sovereign rulers, which provided maintenance either in land or money to junior family members. These grants were recognized under the local laws and customs of the respective states. The respondents contended that these grants were not legally enforceable against the new sovereign. II. Recognition of Grants by the New Sovereign: The petitioners claimed that their rights under the Khor Posh grants were recognized by the new sovereign (Government of India) upon the merger of their states. They argued that the new sovereign had acknowledged these rights either explicitly or by continuing the payments until a certain period. The respondents argued that the new sovereign had not recognized these grants and that the grants were terminated by lawful orders. III. Applicability of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947: The respondents relied on the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, which allowed the Central Government to exercise jurisdiction over the merged states. They argued that the orders stopping the grants were made under this Act and were thus valid. The petitioners contended that the Act did not authorize the abrogation of their grants without proper legislation. IV. Legality of the Government's Orders Stopping the Grants: The petitioners challenged the validity of the orders stopping their grants, arguing that these orders violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 31, and 14 of the Constitution. They claimed that the orders were discriminatory and arbitrary. The respondents argued that the orders were valid acts of State and were made in accordance with the law. V. Whether the Acts Complained of Were Acts of State: The respondents argued that the acts of stopping the grants were acts of State, which could not be challenged in municipal courts. The petitioners contended that the acts were not acts of State as they were directed against subjects of the new sovereign. Judgment: Writ Petition No. 79 of 1957: The court held that the petitioner's rights under the Khor Posh grant were recognized by the new sovereign through the Administration of Orissa States Order, 1948. The court found that the grant had the force of law and was continued in force by the new sovereign. The order stopping the grant was not justified, and the petitioner was entitled to continue receiving the allowance. The petition was allowed, and a writ was issued directing the government to continue the allowance from the date it was withheld. Writ Petition No. 167 of 1958: The court held that the petitioner's rights were validly terminated by the order dated June 8, 1949, made under the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947. The order had the effect of law and abrogated the grant. The petition was dismissed without costs. Writ Petition No. 168 of 1958: The court held that the petitioner's right to maintenance was recognized by the government and implemented until July 1, 1957. The stopping of the payment was not justified by a mere fiat of the government. The petitioner was entitled to the declaration that his right was intact and to a writ of mandamus to the respondent to carry out its obligations. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to costs. Writ Petition No. 4 of 1959: The court held that the petitioners' rights to maintenance allowances were recognized by the government and continued until they were stopped as a result of the statement by the Chief Minister. The stopping of the payments was not justified. The petitioners were entitled to the same relief as in Writ Petition No. 168 of 1958. The petition was allowed, and the petitioners were entitled to costs. Separate Judgment by J. R. Mudholkar, J.: The judge agreed with the conclusions reached by the Chief Justice on the alternative argument based on recognition. He added that Section 299(1) of the Constitution Act of 1935 did not help grantees whose rights had not been recognized by the new sovereign. The provision only protected such rights as the new citizen had at the moment of becoming a citizen of the Indian Dominion. The judge rejected the first argument of Mr. Viswanatha Sastri and agreed with the rest of the judgment. Conclusion: Petitions 79 of 1957, 168 of 1958, and 4 of 1959 were allowed, and Petition 167 of 1958 was dismissed.
|
