STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKOR SHRI PRAVINSINHJI BHARATSINHJI

JUDGEMENT

(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 :

(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:

(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: