JINDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four second appeals were heard during the present circuit to Bilaspur. The appeals involve some common points for determination, relating to the powers of the erstwhile Raja of Bilaspur, prior to the accession of the Bilaspur State to the Union of India (which took place on 13-10-1948 A. D., corresponding to 28th Asoj 2005 B). After the accession of Bilaspur to the Indian Union, the territory was administered by the Central Government through a Chief Commissioner. The personal rule of the, Raja, however, ended with accession. In the present appeals, as I shall show presently, we are! concerned with certain escheats of property in favour of the Raja of Bilaspur and their subsequent grant by the Raja to various persons. (In Regular Second Appeal No. 1 of 1954, the escheat of land took place before accession, but it was sold subsequent to ascession, by the Chief Commissioner of Bilaspur).

(2.) By means of two Robkars dated 1st. Sawan, 1982 and 1-8-1995 B., His Highness Raja Anand Chand of Bilaspur laid down the procedure to be followed in cases of escheat and the subsequent disposal of escheated properties. The purport of these Robkars was that if a person died, without leaving any heirs within five degrees, his properties were to escheat to the State. Such properties could be subsequently granted to the heirs of the deceased beyond the fifth degree on payment of certain Nazrana. It was made clear that such grants or resettlements could not be pre-empted and Courts in Bilaspur were precluded from entertaining such suits. The question that crops up for determination is: Whether the procedure laid down in these two Robkars and the instructions contained therein, would amount to a legal enactment or were merely departmental instractions. In my opinion, there is no room for doubt that His Highness Raja Anand Chand in issuing these circulars, acted as the Ruler of the Bilaspur State. From the very wording of these Robkars, it is clear that they were meant to be instructions for the guidance of the revenue officers, in the State, to enable them to submit correct reports regarding escheat cases and proposals for the disposal of properties so escheated. I am unable to accept the contention that these Robkars amounted to a statute, laying down a line of succession to the properties of those persons, who died without leaving any heirs within five degrees. It has to be borne in mind that the Raja of Bilaspur exercised the full powers of a, sovereign within his State and discharged all his functions as such in matters judicial, executive and legislative. Only in matters relating to external affairs and relations with other States, he was controlled by the British Government. I may refer to the following authorities:--(a) in Gurdwara Sahib Siri Tej Bahadur Gaja v. Piyara Singh, AIR 1953 Pepsu 1, (FB) (A), a Full Bench of the former Pepsu High Court, in considering the powers of the former Maharaja of Patiala, observed as follows:

(3.) My attention was invited by the other side to Balak Ram v. Sita Ram, AIR 1954 Himachal-Pra. 6 (D), where my learned predecessor, in a case from Jubbal, held that: