Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The personal rule of the, Raja, however, ended with accession. In the present appeals, as I shall show presently, we are! concerned with certain escheats of property in favour of the Raja of Bilaspur and their subsequent grant by the Raja to various persons. (In Regular Second Appeal No. 1 of 1954, the escheat of land took place before accession, but it was sold subsequent to ascession, by the Chief Commissioner of Bilaspur).

2. By means of two Robkars dated 1st. Sawan, 1982 and 1-8-1995 B., His Highness Raja Anand Chand of Bilaspur laid down the procedure to be followed in cases of escheat and the subsequent disposal of escheated properties. The purport of these Robkars was that if a person died, without leaving any heirs within five degrees, his properties were to escheat to the State. Such properties could be subsequently granted to the heirs of the deceased beyond the fifth degree on payment of certain Nazrana.

From the very wording of these Robkars, it is clear that they were meant to be instructions for the guidance of the revenue officers, in the State, to enable them to submit correct reports regarding escheat cases and proposals for the disposal of properties so escheated. I am unable to accept the contention that these Robkars amounted to a statute, laying down a line of succession to the properties of those persons, who died without leaving any heirs within five degrees.

It has to be borne in mind that the Raja of Bilaspur exercised the full powers of a, sovereign within his State and discharged all his functions as such in matters judicial, executive and legislative. Only in matters relating to external affairs and relations with other States, he was controlled by the British Government. I may refer to the following authorities:--(a) in Gurdwara Sahib Siri Tej Bahadur Gaja v. Piyara Singh, AIR 1953 Pepsu 1, (FB) (A), a Full Bench of the former Pepsu High Court, in considering the powers of the former Maharaja of Patiala, observed as follows:

4. It would appear that in the former Jubbal State, there was a law, embodied in the State Wajibularz, regarding escheat and the grant of escheated land. In Bilaspur, as already shown, there was no such law. I have already given my reasons for holding that the two Robkars dated 1982 and 1995 B. cannot be treated as statutes. Consequently, the decision, reported in AIR 1954 Him-Pra. 6 (D), has no application to the facts of the present appeals.

5. My attention was also invited to Bhagtu v. Wazir Moti Ram, AIR 1951 J. and K. 14 (E). There, the facts were that, accepting "the recommendations of, the revenue authorities the Ruler, acting as the highest revenue authority in the State, confirmed an order recording a person as malguzar. Under those circumstances, the Board of Judicial Advisers held that the order did not operate as a grant. I have already given my reasons for coming to the conclusions that the two Robkars dated 1982 and 1995 B. were issued by Raja Anand Chand as Ruler of the State and not as the highest revenue Officer in the State. The above ruling has, therefore, no application here.

On appeal being taken to him, the learned District Judge, held that the Robkars had been issued by His Highness, in his capacity as a sovereign, but the grant was made by him as the State Government. I have had considerable difficulty in understanding the finding of the District Judge. The District Judge felt that the grant in favour of Jagat Ram was against the rules contained in the Robkars of 1982 and 1995 B. In his opinion, therefore it was open to the Civil Court to go into the matter. Accordingly, he granted declaration in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that they were entitled to the grant of the land in suit. The grant made in favour of Jagat Ram was set aside.