1941 (4) TMI 20 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Powers of the British Government over Nasirabad under the Treaty of 1903.
2. Juristic effect of the Treaty of 1903.
3. Recognition of pre-existing land rights granted by the Khan of Kalat.
4. Legal enforceability of rights in municipal courts post-cession.

Detailed Analysis:

Powers of the British Government over Nasirabad under the Treaty of 1903:
The appeal questions the extent of the British Government's powers over the subdivision of Nasirabad, which was part of the territory of the Khan of Kalat, under an agreement dated 17th February 1903. This agreement, confirmed by the Viceroy and Governor-General in Council on 14th May 1903, ceded the entire management of Nasirabad to the British Government. The agreement granted the British Government full and exclusive revenue, civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all other administrative powers over the territory. The agreement stipulated that the British Government would pay an annual rent of Rs. 1,15,000 to the Khan of Kalat, with additional provisions for future irrigation projects and lands.

Juristic Effect of the Treaty of 1903:
The plaintiffs argued that the treaty was merely a "commercial contract" intended to facilitate revenue collection. However, the judgment clarified that the treaty constituted a cession of sovereign rights from the Khan of Kalat to the British Government. The treaty's wording, which included phrases like "cedes in perpetuity the entire management of the Nasirabad Niabat absolutely and with all the rights and privileges, State or personal," indicated a transfer of sovereign powers rather than a mere commercial arrangement. The British Government's rights under the treaty were thus akin to those acquired through conquest or cession, as per the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890.

Recognition of Pre-existing Land Rights Granted by the Khan of Kalat:
The plaintiffs held proprietorial rights over part of the land, granted by the Khan of Kalat before the treaty. The Government of India undertook a settlement of the territory, dividing it into eastern and western sections. The western section, where the disputed lands were located, included waste and uncultivated lands classified as "C" lands, which were entered as Government unoccupied lands. The plaintiffs claimed that their pre-existing rights should be recognized. However, the Government argued that the treaty gave them full sovereign rights, allowing them to ignore previous land grants and classify the lands as Government property.

Legal Enforceability of Rights in Municipal Courts Post-cession:
The judgment emphasized that acts of State, such as the treaty and subsequent land settlement, could not be challenged in municipal courts. Citing precedents like Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba and Cook v. Sprigg, the judgment affirmed that the British Government's actions under the treaty were sovereign acts, not subject to judicial review. The plaintiffs' pre-existing rights were only enforceable to the extent that the new sovereign (the British Government) chose to recognize them. The Government's decision not to recognize the plaintiffs' rights over the "C" lands was final and could not be contested in municipal courts.

Conclusion:
The judgment concluded that the Government of India had the right to recognize or ignore pre-existing land rights under the Treaty of 1903. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, as the Government's actions were acts of State, immune from judicial scrutiny. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents' suit was dismissed with costs.