http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THAKOR SHRI PRAVINSINHJI BHARATSINHJI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1986

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1986 SCR  (3)  99        1986 SCC  (3) 329  1986 SCALE  (1)1268

ACT:      Practice and Procedure:      Special leave  petition-party impleaded  as  respondent not party  before Revenue  Tribunal and  High  Court-Whether order impleading  him amounts  to adjudication of his right- Whether can assail the High Court order.

HEADNOTE:      The  petitioner  was  at  one  time  the  Ruler  of  an erstwhile  princely   State  which  ceded  to  the  Dominion Government in  1948. A Jagirdar, who was the owner of a half share in  a Jagir  of villages  contained in  that  princely State,  became   entitled  to  compensation  for  the  trees standing thereon  under the  provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953.      Upon an  application filed  by the  Jagirdar, the Jagir Abolition Officer  awarded Rs.18,258 as compensation for all the trees standing on the jagir and directed that half of it was payable to the Jagirdar and that the other half would go to the former Ruler. In appeal, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal determined the total value of all the trees at Rs.68,039, of which half  was payable  to the Jagirdar. In a writ petition the High  Court held  on July 23, 1975 that the total market value of the trees was Rs.1,70,540 and the Jagirdar would be entitled to the half share with interest thereon from August 1, 1954.      The  petitioner   never  made   any   application   for compensation on  the abolition  of the  jagir and  was not a party to  the proceedings before the Jagir Abolition Officer and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.      During the  pendency of  the appeal by special leave by the  State  in  this  Court  the  application  made  by  the petitioner to be impleaded as a respondent was allowed. That appeal was  disposed of  in view of the decision in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Anr. 100 [1976]   (3)    SCR   565.   The   petitioner,   thereafter, unsuccessfully persisted  with  the  State  authorities  for payment to  him of  the half  share in  the compensation and ultimately filed the present Miscellaneous Petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,80,487.10.      It was  contended for  the State  that the mere fact of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

being impleaded  as a  respondent  in  this  Court  did  not entitle the  petitioner to  any  part  of  the  compensation awarded by  the High  Court, that  there was no adjudication that the  other half  share belonged  to the petitioner, and that since  the jagir  now stood  vested  in  the  State  of Gujarat, the  half share  passed into  the ownership  of the State.      Dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  The order  impleading  the  petitioner  as  a respondent in  the appeal  did not amount to adjudication on the question  whether he  was the  owner of  the other  half share of  the compensation.  His presence  in the  array  of respondents could  not vest  any right in him to any part of the compensation,  for the  special leave petition was filed by the  State against  the order of the High Court in a writ petition preferred  by the Jagirdar, to which the petitioner was not  a party. There was no adjudication by High Court on any claim  of the  petitioner. The entire controversy before it was between the Jagirdar and the State. [105B-D]      2. When  the valuation of the Jagirdar’s half share was determined by  the High  Court, the  valuation of  the other half share  stood automatically  determined, but  there  was nothing in that order determining the ownership of the other half share. [105A-B]      3. The order disposing of the appeal did not confer any right on  the petitioner  in  respect  of  the  compensation payable on  the abolition  of the  jagir. If that appeal had been allowed  in terms of the relief sought by the State, it would have  resulted  in  a  reduction  of  the  quantum  of compensation  awarded  to  the  Jagirdar  and  had  it  been dismissed, the  quantum of  compensation determined  by  the High Court would have stood affirmed. [105D-E]      4. The petitioner will have to establish his title to a half share  of the  compensation in  some other proceedings. [105G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition No. 5255 of 1986 101                              in Civil Appeal No. 1885 of 1977      From the  judgment and  order dated 23.7.75 of the High Court of  Gujarat at  Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 1636 of 1972.      M.N. Shroff, for the Petitioner      Soli J.  Sorabjee, P.H.  Parekh and  Meeta Singhvi, for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PATHAK, J. The petitioner, Shri Virendrasinhji Chauhan, was at  one time  the ruler  of Chhota-Udepur.  The State of Chhota-Udepur containd  the  Jagir  of  villages  Gundi  and Kheda, in  which a half share belonged to a Jagirdar, Thakor Shri  Pravinsinhji   Bharatsinhji  of   Kadwal  (hereinafter referred to  as "the  Thakor"). An  agrement dated March 19, 1948 was  executed between the Governor General of India and the Raja  of Chhota-Udepur.  Under that  agreement the  Raja ceded  to   the  Dominion   Government  full  and  exclusive authority, jurisdiction  and powers for, and in relation to, the governance  of the  State and  agreed  to  transfer  the administration of  the State  to the  Dominion Government on June 10,  1948. In  lieu thereof  the Raja  was entitled  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

receive a privy purse and was entitled to the full ownership and enjoyment  of all  private properties  (as distinct from State properties)  belonging to  him  on  the  date  of  the agreement. He and the members of his family were entitled to all personal  privileges enjoyed  by them  within or outside the territories  of the  State immediately before August 15, 1947. A letter dated October 1, 1948 from Shri V.P. Menon of the Government of India in the Ministry of States elaborated on the terms of the agreement and also declared:           "(5)   Pensions,   gratuities,   annnuities,   and           allowances granted  by the State to the members of           its public  services  who  have  retired  or  have           proceeded  on   leave  preparatory  to  retirement           before 1st  April 1948,  as also  the enjoyment of           the ownership  of Khangi  Villages, lands, jagirs,           grants, etc. existing on 1st April 1948 are hereby           guaranteed. This guarantee is without prejudice to           the right  of Government  of Bombay  to issue  any           legislation which  does not  discriminate  against           the State and their subjects." 102 As has  been mentioned,  the Thakor  was the owner of a half share of  the Jagir  of villages  Gundi and Kheda. Under the provisions  of  the  Bombay  Merged  Territories  and  Areas (Jagirs  Abolition)   Act,  1953,   he  became  entitled  to compensation for  the trees  standing on  the lands  of  the Jagir. He filed an application for compensation. By an award dated May 27, 1969, the Jagir Abolition Officer, Baroda held him entitled  to compensation in respect of unreserved trees only and  declared  that  no  compensation  was  payable  in respect of  reserved trees  in the Jagir. He fixed the value of unreserved trees at Rs.2,620 and observed that while half of the  compensation was  payable to  the claimant the other half would  go to  the former  ruler of  Chhota-Udepur.  The Thakor appealed  to the  Gujarat Revenue  Tribunal, and  the Tribunal, by its order dated June 9, 1961, remanded the case to the  Jagir Abolition Officer for a fresh determination of the valuation  of unreserved  trees, while  observing at the same time  that he  was not  entitled  to  compensation  for reserved trees. The Thakor filed a writ petition in the High Court, and  on December 16, 1963 the High Court held that he was entitled  to compensation  in respect  of reserved trees also. By  his order  dated  September  2,  1967,  the  Jagir Abolition Officer awarded Rs. 18,258 as compensation for all the trees,  reserved as  well as unreserved, standing on the Gundi and Kheda Jagir and directed that out of that amount a sum of  Rs.9,129 was  to be paid to the Thakor. Dissatisfied with the  award, the  Thakor filed  an appeal.  On March 29, 1968, the  Gujarat Revenue Tribunal remanded the case to the Prant Officer  with the  direction that  he should determine the valuation  of the  trees on the basis of the evidence on record. The  Prant Officer,  Chhota-Udepur made his award on August 7,  1971 and held that the valuation of all the trees was Rs.10,134.96 only, of which the Thakor would be entitled to Rs.5,067.48.  The Thakor  again appealed  to the  Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the total value of all  the trees was Rs.68,039 of which half was payable to the Thakor.  The Thakor  then filed  a writ  petition in the Bombay High  Court, and on July 23, 1975 the High Court held that the total market value of the trees was Rs.1,70,540 and the Thakor  would be entitled to the half share of Rs.85,270 with interest  at 3  per cent  per annum on that amount from August 1, 1954.      The State  of Gujarat  obtained Special Leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. This gave rise to Civil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Appeal No.  1885 of  1977. During the pendency of the appeal an  application   was   made   by   the   petitioner,   Shri Virendrasinhji  Chauhan,   praying  for   permission  to  be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal. The application was 103 allowed on  August 18,  1977 and the petitioner was added in the array  of respondents.  In this behalf the record of the case states:           "Upon  hearing   the  office  report  and  hearing           counsel for  the parties,  the Court  allowed  the           application of  Maharaja Virendrasinhji N. Chauhan           for being  impleaded as a party respondent in this           matter and  also directs  that non-filing  of  the           application in the High Court for a certificate to           appeal to  this Court is ignored and condoned. The           Court  granted   Special  Leave   limited  to  the           question of  solatium and interest and dictated an           oral order  dated August 18, 1977 disposing of the           appeal with no order as to costs."      The appeal  was disposed  of by  an order  of that date which reads:           "In view of the decision of this Court in State of           Gujarat &  Ors. v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Anr.           the  award   for  solatium  is  knocked  down  and           interest will also be awarded in the light of that           judgment. Parties were agreed to this situation in           this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.           There will be no order as to costs."      The petitioner  applied to the State of Gujarat and the Collector of  Baroda claiming that he was entitled to a half share in  the total  amount of  compensation, but apparently met with  no success.  Accordingly, he applied to this Court for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court against the State and  the Collector.  Meanwhile, the State had field an application for  the amendment  of the  order of  this Court permitting the petitioner to be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal.  Both applications  were disposed of by an order dated April 4, 1978, which reads:           "We do  not think  that this  is a  case  where  a           contempt  proceeding   can  be   started  on   the           allegation made  in the  petition. The  petitioner           may follow  such right  as may be available to him           in law  for enforcement  of the  award, decree  or           order if there be any in his favour.                Mr. S.T. Desai appearing for the State stated           that he is withdrawing his petition which is filed           for amendment to the order of this Court in C.M.P.           Nos. 6560 to 6571 of 1977." 104      The petitioner persisted with the State authorities for payment to  him of  a half  share in  the compensation,  but having failed  to obtain  payment he  has filed  the present petition claiming  that a  sum of Rs.4,80,487.10 was payable to him  on account  of a half share in the compensation with interest thereon.      The application  is opposed by the State of Gujarat and the Collector  of Baroda. It is disputed that the petitioner is entitled to any compensation under the order dated August 18, 1977  of this  Court disposing  of  the  appeal.  It  is contended that  the  mere  fact  of  being  impleaded  as  a respondent in  this Court does not entitle the petitioner to any part  of compensation  awarded by  the High Court, which was concerned solely with adjudicating a dispute between the Thakor and  the State. It is pointed out that the petitioner had never  made  an  application  for  compensation  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

abolition  of  the  jagir,  and  was  not  a  party  to  the proceedings before  the  Jagir  Abolition  Officer  and  the Gujarat  Revenue   Tribunal.  The   adjudication  by   those authorities determined  that a  half share  belonged to  the Thakor and  there was  no adjudication  that the  other half share belong  to the  petitioner. On  the  contrary,  it  is asserted, the  half share belonged to the erstwhile State of Chhota-Udepur and  on its  merger with  the  then  State  of Bombay that  half share  belonged to the State of Bombay. On the reorganisation  of the States in 1960, when the State of Gujarat came  into existence, the half share passed into the ownership of  the State  of Gujarat.  Upon the  abolition of Jagirs on  August 1,  1954 by  the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas  (Jagirs Abolition)  Act, 1953, the Jagir of Gundi and Kheda was abolished and it now stood vested in the State of Gujarat.  It is pointed out further that the inventory of the private  properties of  the  ruler  prepared  under  the Instrument of Merger made no reference to the Jagir of Gundi and Kheda.  It is  also  stated  that  the  application  for modification of  the order  dated August 18, 1977 impleading the petitioner was not pressed by the State only because the petitioner had  withdrawn the  application for contempt and, therefore, there was no point in pursuing it.      The question  is whether the right of the petitioner to a half  share of  the compensation  stands determined by the order dated  May 4,  1978 of  this Court  disposing  of  the appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated July 23, 1975  of the  High Court.  That order was made on a writ petition filed  by the  Thakor against the State of Gujarat. The petitioner  was not  a party  to the  writ petition. The writ petition  had arisen on proceedings taken in respect of the Thakor’s  half share  in the Jagir and the determination of the compensation. We have perused the 105 order of  the High  Court disposing of the writ petition and we do  not  find  any  adjudication  on  any  claim  of  the petitioner. The  entire controvesy before the High Court was a controversy  between the  Thakor and the State. It is true that when  the valuation  of the  Thakor’s  half  share  was determined by  the High  Court in  the  writ  petition,  the valuation  of  the  other  half  share  stood  automatically determined. But  there is  nothing in  the order of the High Court determining  the ownership  of that  other half share. There is  nothing at  all to  indicate that  the other  half share belongs  to the  petitioner.  As  we  have  seen,  the petitioner applied  for being  impleaded as  a respondent in the Special Leave Petition, but the order impleading him did not amount to an adjudication on the question whether he was the owner  of the  other half  share in the compensation. It was a  Special Leave  Petition filed by the State of Gujarat against an  order of  the High  Court passed  on the dispute between the  State and  the  Thakor.  The  presence  of  the petitioner in  the array  of respondents  could not vest any right in  the petitioner to any part of the compensation. If the appeal  was allowed in terms of the relief sought by the State, it  would have resulted in a reduction of the quantum of compensation  awarded to  the  Thakor.  If  it  had  been dismissed, the  quantum of  compensation determined  by  the High Court  would have  stood affirmed.  There was  no scope anywhere  in   the  appeal   for  determining   whether  the petitioner could claim a part of the compensation.      Upon that ground alone this petition must fail.      If it  was permissible  to go  into the  merits of  the claim of  the petitioner,  it would be necessary to consider whether any part of the Jagir of Gundi and Kheda belonged to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

the petitioner  before the  Instrument of  Merger and, if it did, whether  under the Instrument of Merger it was included in the  list of  private properties  of  the  ruler  or  was retained by  him under any other provision of the Instrument of Merger  or of  law. We find it unnecessary to express any opinion on this point because, as has been seen earlier, the petitioner has  based his  claim on  the order of this Court disposing of  the appeal,  and that  order cannot be said to confer any  rights on  the  petitioner  in  respect  of  the compensation payable  on the abolition of the Jagir. It will be for the petitioner to establish his title to a half share of the compensation in some other proceeding.      The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. P.S.S.                                   Petition dismissed. 106