- (1.) This appeal involves a question of Constitutional law and arises out of a grant made to the appellant Hardial Singh of the property known as 'Malwa House' at Nabha by the ruler of that State. The rent free grant was made by the former ruler of Nabha in the exercise of his sovereign powers to the appellant who was related to him. The State of Nabha subsequently came to be merged in the Patiala and East Punjab States Union when proceedings were taken to eject the appellant from this property. The present suit was brought for a declaration that the grant could not be repudiated by the new State of Pepsu. A number of pleas were reside on behalf of the State of Pepsu before the trial Judge who decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Addl. District Judge of Patiala accepted the position adopted by the State of Pepsu that the sovereign rights of the ruler of Nabha had been surrendered and its subsequent merger in the State of Pepsu which repudiated the grant in exercise of its sovereign powers rendered the dispute non-justifiable. This is now the only point which has been canvassed in appeal preferred by Hardial Singh.
(2.) The question which calls for determination is whether the grant of the property which had been admittedly in possession of the appellant before the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union could be revoked by the new State after the territory of Nabha had been assimilated in the Union. The Union of the Patiala and East Punjab States was formed on 20-8-1948. The actual covenant signed by the eight rulers including Nabha was signed on 5-51948. The administration of the State of Nabha was taken over by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu on 20th August, 1948 on which date Pepsu Administration Ordinance No. 1 of Samvat 2005 was promulgated in pursuance of which all Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Rules, Regulations, Notifications, Hidayat Firmani-Shahi, having force of law in Patiala State on the date of commencement of this Ordinance applied mutatis mutandis to the territories of the covenanting State and with effect from that date all laws in force in the said State immediately before that date stood repealed.
(3.) The Counsel for the appellant contends that the individual grant cannot be elevated to the position of 'law' within the meaning of the Ordinance. It was a grant simplicities given by the ruler of Nabha in the exercise of his sovereign powers and clause (b) of Art. VI of the Covenant protected it. Under this clause "all duties and, obligations of the Ruler pertaining or incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State shall devolve on the Union and shall be discharged by it". A similar contention had been raised in the recent Supreme Court authority, of Income-tax, AIR 1958 SC 816, and it was found untenable.;