TMI Blog1956 (9) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, the then Ruler of mewar ordered the grant of Bapi of the land in favour of Mehta Jagannath Singh. Thereafter the plaintiff was ordered to hand over possession to Mehta Jaganathh singh. The plain-tiff, however, did not do so, and gave notice to the State under section 80 of the Civil P. C. , and thereafter filed the present suit. (3.) The defendants did not dispute the plain-tiff's long and continuous possession of the property; nor was it disputed that the plaintiff was in possession of the property on the date on which he brought the suit. Their ease was that the plaintiff was only a Shikmi tenant of the property. The properly was acquired by the State, and thereafter it was given in Bapi to mehta Jagannath Singh, and consequently the plaintiff's suit must fail. (4.) The trial court dismissed the suit for the first time in May, 19,30. There was an appeal to the District Judge, which was allowed, and the suit was remanded with the direction that findings should he recorded in all undecided issues. Thereafter, the trial court gave its findings on all the issues in plaintiff's favour, but dismissed the suit in December 1932, on the ground that notice under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High School building. The report was submitted to His Highness, and the order of His Highness is as follows hasb report Haza Karrawai Karayi Jave Tamil Hasb Sirashta Hove. (7.) It is contended on behalf of the defendants that this order of His Highness passed in 1942 amounted to a complete acquisition of the land measuring 59 bighas and 7 Biswas and including 7 Biswas of land of the plaintiff. The first question, therefore, that we have to see is whether this order amounts to acquisition of the land by the State, or whether anything further was required before it could be said that the land had vested in the State. There was no law of land acquisition in Mewar at that time, and acquisition used to be done apparently according to the practice prevalent in the State. But whatever may be the practice prevalent in the State, and it has not been proved before us that the practice was that as soon as an order like the one which we have quoted above was passed acquisition was complete, we have to see what would in justice be the time when it can be said that the land has vested in the State on acquisition. In this connection the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land in dispute was never taken possession of by the State authorities till the time the plaintiff brought his suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land vested in the former State of Mewar till the time the plaintiff brought his suit. We also find from the file, in which the order of Asoj Sudi 13th St. 1999 appears and parties have agreed before us that we should look into that file, that an order was passed later on the 5-12-1942 by the minister that possession might be taken only of such part of the 59 bighas and 7 biswas which would be actually required for the building and that the present owners might be allowed to keep possession of the rest of the land. Thereafter, nothing seems to have been done to take possession of the land which was left with the owners. The conclusion, therefore, is that though the declaration was to acquire 59 bighas and 7 biswas of land, only a part of it was actually acquired, and taken possession of and the remainder was never taken possession of, and therefore never vested in the State. (9.) The State therefore could not give a Bapi Patta of land which never vested in it to Mchta Jag-annath Singh, and he has no right to oust the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defence. There is no doubt that in this report there was a specific sanction by His Highness the Maharana for taking possession of the disputed property on payment of ₹ 1,413/6/3 to Neeikanth, and handing it over to Mehta Jagannath Singh. But it is equally clear that up to 27-9-1947, the property in dispute had not vested in the state, and therefore normally the State would have no right by means of such an order to hand over the property of one person to another. It has, however, been urged on behalf of the respondents that the order of the 279-1947, was passed by His Highness the Maharana who was the sovereign ruler of Mewar, and therefore that order could not be questioned in a court of law. There is no doubt that if an order is passed by a sovereign ruler, it cannot be questioned in a civil court; but what the plaintiff contends before us is that by the time this order of the 27-9-1947, was passed the Ruler of Mewar had given a constitution to his subjects and he could not therefore do any-thing against the constitution. Article XIII (1) of that constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. The plaintiff contends that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a sequence of the order of October, 1942. At the best, it can only be called a new order to the effect that property should be acquired on payment of a certain sum of money and given to Mehta Jagannath singh. But by that date the ruler of Mewar had not the absolute power he enjoyed formerly, and was hound by the constitution of Mewar which he had himself conferred on his subjects. Under that constitution, the rights whatever they were of the plaintiff over the property in dispute could not be taken away without due process of law, and mere executive order even of the Ruler could not, in our opinion, amount to due process of law. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the plaintiff never lost whatever rights he had in the property. The property never vested in the State, and the state could not sell it or give it in Bapi Patta to Mehta Jagannath Singh. (13.) The next question is what relief we should grant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff wants a declaration to the effect that the property in dispute belongs to him, and an injunction against the defendants. So far as the house and well are concerned, they certainly belong to the plaintiff. So far as the land is concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
