Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Laws Act, 1872
Thakur Amar Singhji vs State Of Rajasthan(And Other ... on 15 April, 1955
"The status of a person must be either that of
a sovereign or a subject. There is no tertium
quid. The law does not recognise an
intermediate status of a person being partly a
sovereign and partly a subject, and when once
it is admitted that the Bhomicharas had ack-
nowledged the sovereignty of Jodhpur their
status can only be that of a subject. A
subject might occupy an exalted position and
enjoy special privileges, but he is none the
less a subject ; and even if the status of
Bhomicharas might be considered superior to
that of ordinary jagirdars, they were also
subjects." (pp. 336-337)
If the status of the Cis-Sutlej jagirdars is in all other
respects that of subjects, the right to receive the revenue
collections must also be ascribed to their character as
subjects, and that can only be under an implied grant.
But it is contended that the implication of a grant in
favour of the jagirdars could not be made here as in the
case of Bhomicharas in Thakur Amar Singhji's case (1),
because a proposal for resumption and re-grant of the
territories of the Cis-Sutlej Chiefs was actually put
forward in 1846 but was negatived. Reference was made to
the following
(1) [19551 2 S. C. R. S03.
The Punjab Jagirs Act, 1941
The General Clauses Act, 1897
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Promod Chandra Deb And Others vs The State Of Orissa And Others on 16 October, 1961
And, more recently, this question has been considered by
this Court in Promod Chandra Deb v. The State of Orissa (1),
and the result was thus stated :-
The State Of Orissa vs Madan Gopal Rungta.The State Of ... on 25 October, 1951
(1) A. I. R. .961) S. C. 908
368
But it is pointed out for the intervener that on his
application this Court has ordered stay of payment of a part
of the compensation amount to the appellant pending the
disposal of the, appeal, and that a similar direction might
now be made in the Judgment, staying payment of a part of
the amount for a specified period, so as to enable him to
take steps to protect his rights. But that was an interim
order made pending the appeal, and no such order could be
passed in the appeal unless it follows on a decision of the
rights of the parties, which is, an already stated, outside
the scope of the present proceedings, vide the state of
Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta 0). We do not therefore
propose to say anything on the rights of the intervener or
give any directions with reference to the payment of the
compensation amount. It is open to the intervener to take
other and appropriate proceedings to vindicate his rights.
Before concluding, it has to be noted that in Writ Petition
No. 148 of 1961 there, are as many as 72 Petitioners. some
of whom are stated not to belong to the category of Cis-
Sutlej jagirdars. Their joinder is clearly improper. 'It
is also said that three of them, Petitioners Nos. 66, 68 and
69, had filed Writ Petitions under Art. 226 of the Cons-
tituation in the Punjab High Court, raising the same
contentions as in the present, that the said petitions had
been dismissed on the merits, and no appeal had been
preferred against the Orders of dismissal, and in
consequence, the concerned petitioners cannot, on the
decisions of this Court, maintain this petition. But as we
are dismissing these petitions on the merits, no further
notice need be taken of these points. In the result, the
petitions are dismissed with costs, one hearing fee, and the
appeals are dismissed with costs one set.