- (1.) The petitioner, Shri Virendrasinhji Chauhan, was at one time the ruler of Chhota-Udepur. The State of Chhota-Udepurcontained 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 agreement dated 19/03/1948 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 10/06/1948. In lieu thereof the Raja was entitled to 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 numbers of his family were entitled to all personal privileges enjoyed by them within or outside the territories of the State immediately before 15/08/1947. A letter dated 1/10/1948 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, annuities, 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 1/04/1948, as also the enjoyment of the ownership of Khangi villages, lands, jagirs, grants, etc. existing on 1/04/1948 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 States and their subjects. 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 27/05/1969, 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. 00 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 Tribnal, by its order dated 9/06/1961, 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 16/12/1963 the High court held that he was entitled to compensation in respect of reserved trees also. Byhis order dated 2/09/1967, the Jagir Abolition Officer awarded rs 18,258 as compensation for all the trees, reserved aswell as unreserved, standing on the Gundi and Kheda jagir and directed that out of that amount a sum of Rs. 9,129. 00 was to be paid to the Thakor. Dissatisfied with the award, the Thakor filed an appeal. On 29/03/1968, 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 7/08/1971 and held that the valuation of all the trees was Rs. 10,134.96 only, of which the thakor would be entitled to Rs. 5067.48. 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. 00 of which half was payable to the Thakor. The Thakor then filed a writ petition in the Bombay high court, and on 23/07/1975 the High court held that the total market value of the trees was Rs. 1,70,540. 00 and the Thakor would be entitled to the half-share of Rs. 85,270. 00 with interest at 3 per cent per annum on that amount from 1/08/1954.
(2.) The State of Gujarat obtained special leave to appeal against the order of the High court. This gave rise to Civil1885 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 allowed on 18/08/1977 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 fora 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 18/08/1977 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 Stale of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue tribunal 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.
(3.) 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. Accord-ingly, he applied to this court for initiating proceedings for contempt of court against the State and the Collector. Meanwhile, the State had filed 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 4/04/1978, 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 CMP Nos. 6560 to 6571 of 1977.;