9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (11) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries covered about 540 sq. miles between them. The petitioners in the High Court in their petitions, claimed a sovereign status and referred to a mass of historical literature, including references to the Imperial Gazetteer by W.W. Hunter, Sir Richard Temple's Treaties, Zamindaries, Chieftainships in Central Provinces, and other official records. The High Court has found that the remote ancestors of the petitioners were Bhuiyan Chiefs, who were the original settlers and who had in course of time become the chieftains of the place, exercising sovereign powers. Subsequently, when the Rajput Rules of Gangpur settled in that area, these Bhuiyan Chiefs accepted the suzerainty of those Rulers and gradually surrendered their sovereign rights. They used to pay annual Takolis , which they originally paid as tributes to the suzerain, but which later became indistinguishable from land revenue. Their status vis-a-vis the Ruler of Gangpur remained undefined, though in successive revenue settlements made by the Ruler of Gangpur, with the concurrence of the then political Department, of the Government of India, they were described as Zamindars, and 'Khewats' were issued to them. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioners in the High Court preferred an appeal to this Court. The judgment of this Court is reported as Biswambhar Singh v. State of Orissa [1954] 1 SCR 842 . This Court allowed the appeal of the proprietors of Hemgir and Sarpgarh on the ground that they were not 'Intermediaries' as defined in s. 2(h) of the Act. As regards the proprietor of Nagra Zamindari, by a majority judgment, it was decided that he came within the definition of an 'intermediary', and that, therefore, his land would come within the definition of an 'estate', as defined in s. 2(g) of the Act. This Court distinguished the case of Nagra from that of the other two on the ground that the Zamindar of Nagra had acknowledged the overlordship of the Raja of Gangpur. As a result of the decision of this Court, allowing the appeals of the Zamindars of Hemgir and Sarpgarh and prohibiting the State of Orissa from taking over possession of those two zamindaries under the Act, the Orissa Legislature passed the Amending Act (XVII) of 1854 recasting the definition of the two 'estate' and 'intermediary'. The amended definition of these two terms is as follows :- (g) 'estate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Committee or other legal curator shall be deemed to be an Intermediary for the purposes of this Act. All acts done by an Intermediary under this Act shall be deemed to have been done by his heirs and successors-in-interest and shall be binding on them. In the statement of object and reasons for amending the Act, it was indicated that these wide definitions of those two terms were enacted so that the decision of this Court with particular reference to these two properties may not stand in the way of acquiring them. Though the arguments in the High Court occupied a every large filed, on these appeals Mr. Chatterjee, on behalf of the appellants, has confined his submissions, in the ultimate analysis to only one point, namely, that even after the amendment of the Act the legislature has failed to achieve its objective of bringing the land of these two petitioners within the mischief of the Act. In other words, the contention is that the appellants were sovereign rules whose States could not be taken over by the State of Orissa even after the amendment of the Act, as aforesaid. The definition of 'intermediary' in s. 2(h) as amended, the argument proceeds further, would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conquest or by treaty or by cession or otherwise. It may have happened on a particular date by a public declaration or proclamation, or it may have been the result of a historical process spread over many years, and sovereign powers including the right to legislate in that territory and to administer it may be acquired without the territory itself merging in the new State. It has been found by the High Court that the various laws which were in force in Gangpur State were in force in Hemgir and Sarapgarh also, by their own force and not as a result of any agreement between sovereign State. Furthermore the various department of administration were also in the hands of the staff maintained and supervised by the Ruler of Gangpur. Hence, at the date of the merger of the Gangpur State in the State of Orissa, not even a vestige of sovereignty was left with these appellants. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to a large mass of historical evidence which shows that at one time in the ancient past these appellants or their ancestors were sovereign chiefs. They may have occupied that portion in the remote past, but as a result of historical process spread over many years, those rights b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
