STATE OF SERAIKELLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1951-4-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 06,1951

STATE OF SERAIKELLA Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOON V. BURDEN [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF BIHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1969-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
GOODWILL INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1968-8-6] [REFERRED]
DROPADI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1989-4-40] [REFERRED 63 AIR 1947 PC 1 78]
MALEK SHRI KAMALKHANJI JIWANKHANJI VS. EXPENDITURE TAX OFFICER WARD C SURENDRANAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-1961-12-3] [REFERRED]
PREM PRAKASH GUPTA VS. UNION OFINDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1977-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
NONGKHLAW CLAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1997-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
LOKENATH BHATTACHARJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1957-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
M L DALMIYA AND CO VS. CHINTA HARAN MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1958-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAHARLAL PAGALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1958-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. JIWANMALL BABU [LAWS(CAL)-1959-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI PRAKASH MITTER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1967-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN KUMAR SENGUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1972-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. BEHRAMJI DUNGAJI AND CO [LAWS(MPH)-1957-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES VS. JANARDAN NANDA [LAWS(ORI)-1968-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL GANPAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1973-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL PAHAR VS. SUBHAS MAHATO [LAWS(CAL)-1984-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMUNDI HOTEL P LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-1997-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
DAJISAHEB VS. SHANKARRAO VITHALRAO [LAWS(BOM)-1951-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
THOLAPPA IYENGAR ALIAS ALAGAR IYENGAR VS. EXECUTIVE OFFICER KALLAGAR DEVASTHANAM ALAGARKOIL MADURAI [LAWS(MAD)-1993-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA HARMAHENDRA SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1952-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN TRADE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. RAJ MAL PAHAR CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1956-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUNDRI ALIAS SHAM SUNDRI RAM RACHHPAL BERI VS. COLLECTOR LUDHIANA [LAWS(P&H)-1959-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1960-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUKANLAL SOHANLAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
LADU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIVAJI RAO SGINDIA BAHADUR OF GWALIOR H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MAHARANA SHRI BHAGWAT SINGHJI BAHADUR OF UDAIPUR COL H H BRARBANS SARAMAUR RAJA I RAJAGAN SIR PRATAP SINGH MALVENDRA BAHADUR COL RAJA SURINDER SINGH BAHADUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1970-12-23] [DISTINGUISHED]
MAHARAJ UMEG SINGH VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-1955-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED VS. PANCHSHEELA INDUSTRIAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1978-10-10] [REFERRED]
RAMAVILAS TOBACCO COMPANY VS. SECRETARY ERODE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COMMITTEE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-274] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF MHOW VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2009-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER BATRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
UDAYBHAN VS. FIRM SHANKAR LAL MOTILAL [LAWS(MPH)-1952-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
GOKUL DAS VS. MOHAN KUNWAR BAI [LAWS(MPH)-1952-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
M.L. DALMIYA AND COMPANY VS. CHINTA HARAN MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1958-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
NARBIR SINGH VS. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) ETC. [LAWS(HPH)-1977-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
ASA SINGH KOCHHAR AND ANR. VS. DARSHAN SINGH KOCHHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-1975-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-100] [REFERRED TO]
BLOCK MEDICAL OFFICER KREERI BARAMULLA AND ANR. VS. NASEEMA AKHTER AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-9-106] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a suit filed on 15th January 1950 under the original Jurisdiction of the Federal Court as it was functioning before the Constitution of India came into force on 26th January1950. The State of Seraikella was a State in Orissa and its Ruler was Raja Aditya Pratap Singh Deo. On 16th August 1947, the plaintiff State acceded to the Dominion of India by virtue of an Instrument of Accession executed by its Ruler and accepted by the Governor-General of India under Section 6, Government of India Act, 1935. After reciting that under the Indian Independence Act,1947, the Dominion of India was set up and that under the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted, it provided that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession, the Instrument stated that the Raja acceded to the Dominion of India and that he accepted that the matters specified in the Schedule to the Instrument were the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for the State. The three principal heads mentioned in the Schedule to that instrument were Defence, External Affairs and Communications, with particulars detailed under each of those heads. The Instrument expressly provides that by executing the same the Ruler shall not be deemed to be committed to the acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter his discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution. It further expressly provides that nothing in the Instrument affects the continuance of the sovereignty in and over the State, or save as provided by or under the Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights so far enjoyed by him as Ruler of the State or the validity of any law then in force in the State. It also provides that the terms of the Instrument of Accession are not to be varied by any amendment of the Government of India Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by the Ruler or by an Instrument supplementary to the said Instrument. It was denied in the plaint that any such supplementary instrument was executed by the Ruler and no amendment of the aforesaid Acts has been accepted by him or the plaintiff State. A standstill Agreement was also executed by the Ruler under which it was agreed that matters of common concern and specified in the Schedule to the Agreement would continue between the Dominion of India and the said State until new agreements were made in that behalf.
(2.)On 15th December 1947 all agreement is alleged to have been entered into between the Governor General of India and the Ruler of the plaintiff State. By that document, 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 1st January 1948. Article 2 contained a provision for the Privy Purse of the Raja and it is contended by the plaintiff that when the Raja signed the document the figure in this clause had been left blank. Under Article 3 of that agreement, it was provided that the Raja would be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to him on the date of the agreement and that by 1st January 1948 the Raja will furnish to the Dominion Government an inventory of all immovable properties, securities and cash held by him as such private property. Under Article 4, the personal privileges enjoyed by the Raja and the members of his family mentioned therein had to continue.
(3.)On 24th December 1947 an Act to provide for the exercise of certain extra-provincial jurisdiction of the Central Government (Act XLVII of 1947) was passed. Under Section 3 of that Act it was provided that it shall be lawful for the Central Government to exercise extra-provincial jurisdiction in such manner as it thinks fit and the Central Government may delegate any such jurisdiction as aforesaid to any officer or authority in such manner and to such extent as it thinks fit. Under Section 4, it was provided that the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette make such orders as may seem to it expedient for the effective exercise of any extra provincial jurisdiction of the Central Government. A notification under Section 4 of that Act was thereafter issued by the Central Government delegating under S. 3, the powers contained in the Act to the Province of Orissa. On 18th May 1948 that notification was cancelled and the powers in respect of the two specified states including the plaintiff State were delegated to the Province of Bihar. On the same day the Government of Bihar passed an order called " The Seraikella and Kharaswan State Order" providing for the administration of the two States. On 5th January 1949 the Legislative Assembly of India, which was also functioning as the Constituent Assembly, passed the Constituent Assembly Act 1 of 1949 and added section 290-A to the Government of India Act.1935. The sections run as follows:
"Administration of certain Acceding States as a Chief Commissioner's Province or as part of a Governor's or Chief Commissioner's Province.

(1) Where full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and Powers for and in relation to the Government of any

Indian State or of any group of such States are for the time being exercisable by the Dominion Government, the Governor-General may by Order direct -

(a) that the State or the group of States shall be administered in all respects as if the State or the group of States were a Chief Commissioner's Province ; or

(b) that the State or the group of States shal1 be administered in all respects as if the State or the group of States formed part of a Governor's or a Chief Commissioner's Province specified in the Order :

Provided that if any Order made under clause (b) of this sub- section affects a Governor's Province, the Governor-General shall before making such Order, ascertain the view of the Government of that Province both with respect to the proposal to make the Order and with respect to the provisions to be inserted therein.

(2) Upon the issue of an order under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section, all the provisions of this Act applicable to the Chief Commissioner's Province of Delhi shall apply to the State or the group of States in respect of which the order is made.

(3) The Governor - General may in making an order under sub section (l) of this section give such supplemental, incidental and consequential directions (including directions as to representation in the Legislature) as he may deem necessary.

(4) In this section, reference to a State shall include reference to a part of a State."

On the 17th of July 1949, the Governor General of India promulgated an Order called the States Merger (Governors' Provinces) Order of 1949. The result of that was that the plaintiff State is claimed to have merged in the Province of Bihar.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.