MAHARAJA ADITYA PRATAP SINGH DEO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the 16th August, 1947, an instrument of accession was executed between the Dominion of India and the petitioner who was at that time the ruler of Seraikella State. This was followed by another agreement, between the parties known as the stand -still agreement. On the 15th December, 1947, a further agreement was reached between the petitioner and the Dominion of India by which the administration of Seraikella was transferred to the Dominion of India. Subsequently, on the 31st December, 1947, the Government of Orissa, purporting to act under the authority, and as a delegate, of the Government of India, took over the administration of Seraikella State. On the 18th May 1948, the administration of the State was transferred to Bihar, and ever since it has been administered by the Government of Bihar. On the 12th January, 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India amended the Government of India Act, 1935, by introducing in the said Act Sections 290A and 2908. This Act was authenticated by the President of the Constituent Assembly on the 10th January, 1949 and was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on the 12th January, 1949. In pursuance of the powers conferred under Section 290A of the Amending Act the Government of India promulgated an order on the 27th July, 1949. This order was called the States'Merger (Governors Provinces) Order, 1949. On the 26th January, 1950, when the Constitution came into force, the State of Seraikella was treated and held to be a territory of Bihar.

(2.) THE Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) came into force on the 25th September, 1950. Under section 3 of that Act the Government of Bihar issued the following notification on the 10th May, 1955 : "The 10th May, 1955. No. 5327 -LR/ZAN In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (i) of Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to declare that the tenures named in the schedule hereto annexed belonging to the tenure -holder named in the Schedule, have with effect from the date of the publication of this notification in the Bihar Gazette, passed to and become vested in the State under the provisions of this Act. SCHEDULE

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner it was submitted in the first place that the properties comprised in the notification (Annexure A) are outside the jurisdiction of the Bihar Legislature.It was contended that the properties are the private properties of the Petitioner "in his capacity as Ruler of Seraikelia" and the Bihar Legislature has, therefore, no jurisdiction to legislate with respect to these properties. Reference was made in this connection to the letter of the Government of India, dated the 30th April, 1956, which is annexure C to the petitioner's affidavit dated the 29th October, 1962. In my opinion there is no warrant or foundation for this argument. The Bihar Legislature derives its legislative authority from Art. 245 and Art. 246 of the Constitution. Article 245 confers the authority upon the Bihar Legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the geographical territory of the State. Article 1 (2) of the Constitution provides that India shall be a Union of States and that the States and the territories thereof shall be the States and their territories specified in Parts A, B and C of the First Schedule; and the relevant entry in that Schedule shows that the territory of Bihar shall comprise the territories which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution were comprised in it and the territories, which, by virtue of an order made under section 290 -A of the Government of India Act, 1935, were immediately before such commencement being administered as if they formed part of that Province.It is not disputed, and it cannot be disputed that the State of Seraikella was being administered immediately before the Constitution as if it formed part of Bihar and that this was a result of an order made under Sec. 290 -A of the Government of India Act.The Constitution, therefore, treats the state of Seraikella as part of Bihar, and the reason for doing so is stated in the Constitution to be that factually it was administered as if it formed part of Bihar. The argument of the petitioner on this point is therefore, untenable and must be rejected. A similar argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by the Supreme Court in the previous case, State of Seraikella v. Union of India, 1961 SCR 474 at p 523 : (AIR 1951 SC 253 at p 270) and again by the Supreme Court in its remand order in the present case, dated the 1st September, 1960.