1954 (4) TMI 64 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Post-Constitutional rights to property in Indian States that acceded to the Dominion of India.
2. Validity of grants made by rulers of Charkhari and Sarila before integration into the Indian Union.
3. The impact of the Constitution on the rights and properties in the acceding States.
4. Whether the revocation of grants by the Uttar Pradesh Government was lawful.
5. The applicability of Article 31(1) and Article 19(f) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Post-Constitutional Rights to Property in Indian States that Acceded to the Dominion of India:
The petition under Article 32 raises an important question about the post-Constitutional rights to property situated in Indian States that were not part of British India before the Constitution but acceded to the Dominion of India shortly before the Constitution and became an integral part of the Indian Republic after it. The States in question here are Charkhari and Sarila. In British days they were independent States under the paramountcy of the British Crown. They acknowledged the British Crown as the suzerain power and owed a modified allegiance to it, but none to the Government of India. The sovereignty of the acceding States was expressly recognized and safeguarded in the Instruments of Accession.

2. Validity of Grants Made by Rulers of Charkhari and Sarila Before Integration:
The alienations in question were made in January 1948. On 5th January 1948, the Ruler of Sarila granted the village Rigwara to the petitioners and on 28th January 1948, the Ruler of Charkhari granted the villages Patha, Kua, and Aichana, also to the petitioners. The Vindhya Pradesh Government decided on 7th December 1948 to respect the impugned grants. The Revenue Minister's order stated that such grants made by the Rulers before signing the covenant should be respected. However, the Uttar Pradesh Government, in consultation with the Government of India, revoked the grants on 29th August 1952, alleging mala fide intentions behind these grants.

3. The Impact of the Constitution on the Rights and Properties in the Acceding States:
The Constitution came into force on 26th January 1950. The new Republic was born, and all derived their rights of citizenship from the same source and from the same moment of time. Article 1(1) sets out that India shall be a Union of States, and Article 5 defines Indian citizens, including the Rulers of Charkhari and Sarila and the petitioners. The Constitution blotted out all vestiges of arbitrary and despotic power in the territories of India and over its citizens and lands, prohibiting acts of arbitrary power.

4. Whether the Revocation of Grants by the Uttar Pradesh Government was Lawful:
The operative order of revocation was made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The affidavit of the respondent shows that the Government decided to confirm all grants except those which were mala fide. The revocation was made in consultation with the Government of India. Jurists hold divergent views on the matter of acts of State. However, the Constitution prohibits acts of arbitrary power, and the present action of the State cannot be defended as an act of State.

5. The Applicability of Article 31(1) and Article 19(f) of the Constitution:
Article 31(1) of the Constitution is attracted, as also Article 19(f). The petitioners are entitled to a writ under Article 32(2). A writ will accordingly issue restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh from giving effect to the orders complained of and directing it to restore possession to the petitioners if possession has been taken. The petitioners will be paid their costs by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The intervener will bear its own.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the writ, restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh from giving effect to the orders revoking the grants and directing it to restore possession to the petitioners if possession has been taken. The petitioners are entitled to their costs, and the intervener will bear its own costs.