on No 62 of 1956
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
NH Hingorani and A N Sinha for the petitioner
R Ganapathy Iyer and T M Sen for the respondent
April 14
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J
Prior to the integration of the Indian States with the Union of India on the promulgation of the Constitution of India there was in Kathiawad a State of the name of Vadia succession to the Rulership of which was by primogeniture
Its Ruler then was Darbar Saheb Shri Surag Vala Bavavala
He had two sons Kumar Shri Krishan Kumar and the petitioner Kumar Shri Vira Vala Surag Vala
Kumar Shri Krishan Kumar being the elder son was the heir apparent
On July 5 1943 the Ruler Darbar Saheb Shri Surag Vala executed two documents in favour of the petitioner granting him in perpetuity and in heredity a village called  Mota Pithadia  in the State for enjoyment as  Kapal Giras  as  Bhayat 
The word  Bhayat  means a cadet or the descendant of a younger branch of a Talukdar s family where the State followstheruloofprimogeniture Kapal Giras means a grant in appanage as a birthright to a share in the patrimony
Sometime in or about August 1947the State of Vadia acceded to the Dominion of India on the terms contained in an instrument of accession then executed
Thereafter on January 23 1948 various States in the Kathiawad area entered into a covenant forming the United State of Kathiawad also called the United State of Saurashtra
In terms of this covenant the 523 assets of each State excepting the private properties of the Ruler became the assets of the United State
The covenant also provided that the Ruler of each State shall be entitled to receive a certain sum as his privy purse from the revenues of the United State to retain ownership of all private properties to be determined in the manner provided and to all personal privileges dignities and titles
The Government of India concurred in the covenant and guaranteed all its provisions
The State of Vadia was a party to this covenant and its assets therefore became vested in the United State
On September 13 1948 the United State of Kathiawad executed a fresh instrument of accession to the Dominion of India cancelling the instrument of accession executed by the covenanting States in or about August 1947
On November 13 1949 the United State of Kathiawad agreed to adopt the Constitution to be framed by the Constituent Assembly of India and further that the Constitution of India as from the date of its commencement would supersede and abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith in force in the United State
On the promulgation of the Constitution of India on January 26 1950 the United State merged in the Union of India and became Saurashtra a Part B State mentioned in the Constitution
The United State and therefore its component States since then lost all separate existence
It is not in dispute that upon such merger all the assets of the United State became vested in the Union of India
On January 27 1950 Kumar Shri Krishan Kumar the elder son of the Ruler Darbar Saheb Shri Surag Vala died and thereafter on May 16 1950 the Ruler himself died
On February 12 1951 the President of India issued a notification recognising the petitioner as the Ruler of Vadia with effect from May 161950 and he became entitled to the rights of the Ruler which the Government of India had agreed to recognise
These were the rights reserved to the Ruler under the covenant constituting the United State of kathiawad namely the right to a privy purse to the private properties and to the personal privileges dignities and titles
524 On July 2 1951 the Government of the State of Saurashtra issued a notification declaring that as the petitioner had succeeded his father as Ruler the village Pithadia should pending final orders be treated as Khalsa or Khas village of the State of Saurashtra
The petitioner was then a minor and his mother submitted a representation to the Government protesting against the notification
No reply was received to this protest
On May 23 1952 the Government of Saurashtra issued a further notification which stated  Whereas the village Pithadia in Vadia Taluka of the Madhya Saurashtra District was granted by Lekh No 194 dated 5th July 1943 as Kapal Giras by the late Ruler Darbar Saheb Suragwala of the former Vadia State to his second son Shri K section Viravala in the latter s capacity as a cadet in appanage grant and Whereas the late Ruler and his eldest son Shri K section Krishna Kumarsinghji predeceased this second son Shri K SViravala the latter has been recognised as the Ruler of the former State of Vadia with effect from 16th May 1950 by the Government of Saurashtra and the President of India as per Notification No PDMS20 dated 12th February 1951 of the Government of Saurashtra Revenue Department Political published in the Gazette of Saurashtra and Whereas pending the recognition the Government of Saurashtra had ordered by Notification No PD14820 dated 2nd July 1951 of the Revenue Department Political that village should be treated as Khalsa village of the State of Saurashtra and whereas Shri K section Viravala s status as a Cadet has ceased and the object of the grant in appanage has terminated in consequence of his being recognised as the Ruler
Now therefore the grant is deemed to have lapsed and reverted to the former Vadia State now integrated with the State of Saurashtra at present known as the State of Saurashtra with effect from the date of Shri K section Viravala having been recognised as the Ruler of the former Vadia State in succession to the late Ruler Darbar Shri Suragwala of Vadia State viz 16th of May 1950 
525 The petitioner again lodged a protest against this latter notification but this time also received no reply
On March 9 1956 he filed the present petition under article 32 of the Constitution asking for the issue of a writ directing the respondent the State of Bombay in which State State of Saurashtra had earlier merged to withdraw or cancel the notification and to restore the village Pithadia with all collections and realisations made by it to the petitioner and restraining the respondent from giving effect to the notification
The petitioner s contention is that the village had been granted to him absolutely and unconditionally for permanent enjoyment from generation to generation and the State could not resume it so long as any of the descendants of the petitioner was alive
He contends that President s recognition of him as Ruler of Vadia did not affect his rights to the village
The respondent s contention is that the grant was not absolute or unconditional but it was to remain in force so long as the petitioner continued to be a cadet of the family and that as on his being recognised as the Ruler he ceased to be a cadet the grant lapsed and the village reverted to the State
It is said that the Union of India being entitled to all the assets of the State of Vadia the village has become its property since the date of the petitioner s recognition as the Ruler
The question therefore is whether the grant lapsed on the grantee becoming the Ruler
That is a question depending on the terms of the grant
Webb in his compilation called  Political Practice in Kathiawad  has defined a  Bhayat  as a cadet or the descendant of a younger branch of a Talukdar s family where the estate follows the rule of primogeniture
The grant was made by a document called a Lekh or a writing to which was attached a Hakpatrak which is a Statement of rights created by the Darbar to a Bhayat
Both these documents were registered before the Agency
The main portions of the
Lekh were in these terms  Passed by Shree Vadia Darbar Shree Suragvala Bavavala to long lived Kumar Shree Viravala
To wit the Rule of primogeniture ie the system 69 526 of Heir apparent and cadets having been applied to this State and you being our Kumar SOD younger than our eldest Kumar long lived Yuvaraj Shree Krishna Kumar Saheb you are by this Lekh given as Bhayat for permanent enjoyment as Kapal Giras from generation to generation the village  Mota Pithadia  a village of exclusive jurisdiction of this State which is of our possession enjoyment and ownership with its village Tal village site and Sim with all their boundaries fields Vadis Kharo Kharabo etc ie with all the boundaries of  the said village as Giras
You may enjoy the revenues thereof from the beginning of the Year Samvat 2000
as Bhayat a Hakpatrak statement of rights thereof according to procedure has been given
The same has been attached herewith
You and your heirs and successors may enjoy the same
Map and Field Book of this village have been made true copies whereof have been got prepared and given to you 
The lekh conferred various other dignities privileges amenities and rights on the petitioner
Thus it is stated that the petitioner s marriage will be celebrated at the State expense and the State will arrange for his education that no duties or taxes will be levied on the petitioner on account of his residence in Vadia proper that the petitioner s complaint regarding Giras ie the village granted or any other civil matter would be heard without charging any court fee and he would be exempt from personal attendance in court in civil matters and that no process will be issued against him in criminal cases without the permission of the Ruler himself
All these dignities rights and privileges are appropriate to a cadet of the Ruler s family but have no meaning when applied to a Ruler
In the Hak Patrak it is stated  In future even if your descendants are joint or may have divided any one Bhayat surviving from amongst your descendants shall enjoy the Sudharo Giras and it Shall not 527 revert to the State till any one Bhayat from amongst your descendants is living 
It also states that the grantee will not sell or mortgage the Giras without the permission of the State
The grant and the Hak Patrak read together lead to the inescapable conclusion that in its true natures the grant is a grant to a cadet of the family and the grant enures for his benefit as long as he remains a cadet
The expression  given as Bhayat  is not merely descriptive of the grantee but indicates the true nature of the grant
Nor do we agree that the expression  given as Bhayat  merely indicates the purpose for which the grant is made but describes the nature of the tenure
The grant states in express terms that it is given as Bhayat for permanent enjoyment as Kapal Giras which means that the grant is to a cadet as an appanage and continues from generation to generation as long as any of the descendants of the grantee is alive
But if the grantee ceases to be the younger branch and becomes heir apparent by reason of the rule of primogeniture or ceases to be a cadet or Bhayat for any reason whatsoever then the grant must come to an end
This is what the rights and liabilities mentioned in the grant itself and also in the Hak Patrak show for example with regard to the right of succession the Hak Patrak states that even if one Bhayat from amongst the descendants survives he shall enjoy the Giras and there will be no reversion to the State
This in our opinion shows that the grant enures as long as there is a Bhayat
If there is no Bhayat the grant lapses
If on a true construction the grant is of the nature indicated above then no question of reading an implied term in the grant arises nor is there any necessity of determining whether the petitioner has become a ruler in the sense in which his father was a ruler of the Vadia State
Whatever be the reason for which the petitioner has ceased to be a Bhayat either by reason of the death of his elder brother or by reason of his becoming a ruler in the limited sense of the Constitution he has ceased to be a Bhayat and the grant being given as Bhayat for 528 permanent enjoyment as Kapal Giras it has come to an end
In that view of the matter the petitioner must be held to have failed to make out any infringement of his fundamental  right by reason of the notification dated May 23 1952
The infringement which the petitioner complains of is deprivation of his property by State action and he bases his right on the terms of the grant
If the grant is not an absolute grant in the sense in which the petitioner contends but is a grant which by its very nature contains a defeasance clause then the petitioner cannot found his claim on any violation of his fundamental right
The petition is therefore dismissed with costs
Petition dismissed


Summary:
One S lodged a first information report against K
When K found that no action was taken on the report for several months he filed a criminal complaint against S contending that the report lodged by S was false
At the instance of S the magistrate ordered K s complaint to stand adjourned till the police made its final report on the first information report
Thereupon K moved the High Court under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report
Pending the hearing the police submitted its report under section 173 of the Code
Subsequently the High Court dismissed the petition
K obtained special leave and appealed Held that no case for quashing the proceedings was made out
The inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court could be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
The following are some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised to quash proceedings i where there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings ii where the allegations in the first information report or complaint did not make out the offence alleged and iiiwhere either there was no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charge
In exercising its jurisdiction under section 561 A of the Code the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not 
In the present case there was no legal bar to the institution of the proceedings or to their continuance the allegations made in the first information report did constitute the offences alleged and it could not be contended that on the face of the record the charge was unsustainable
In re Shripad G Chandavarkar AIR 1928 Bom
184 jagat Chandra Mozumdar vs Queen Empress Cal
786 Dr Shankar Singh vs The State of Punjab 1954 56 Punj
LW 54 Nripendra Bhusan Ray vs Govind Bhandhu Majumdar AIR 1924 Cal
1018 and Ramanathan Chettiar vs K Sivarama Subrahmanya Ayyar Mad 722 referred to
SP Jaiswal vs The State  distin guished 389