Appeal No 198 of 1954
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 16 1952 of the former Nagpur High Court in Misc Petn No 1231 of 1951
M section K Sastri for the appellant
H L Khaskalam B K B Naidu and I N Shroff for the respondent
64 502 1960
November 18
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Nagpur High Court dismissing the appellants petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
The High Court certified under article 1321 of the Constitution that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
Hence the present appeal
The appellant was the Ruler of the State of Baster
After the passing of the Indian Independence Act 1947 the appellant executed an Instrument of Accession to the Dominion of India on August 14 1947
Thereafter he entered into an agreement with the Dominion of India popularly known as The Stand Still Agreement
On December 15 1947 he entered into an agreement with the Government of India whereby he ceded the State of Baster to the Government of India to be integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar now the State of Madhya Pradesh in such manner as the Government of India thought fit
Con sequently the Governments in India came to have exclusive and plenary authority jurisdiction and powers over the Baster State with effect from January 1 1948
The Legislature of the State of Madhya Pradesh passed the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates Mahals Alienated Lands Act 1950 Madhya Pradesh Act 1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act which received the assent of the President of India on January 22 1951
The preamble of the Act stated that it was one to provide for the acquisition of the rights of proprietors in estates mahals alienated villages and alienated lands in Madhya Pradesh and to make provisions for other matters connected therewith
Under section 3 of the Act vesting of proprietary rights in the State Government takes place on certain conditions mentioned in that section being complied with
The definition of proprietor  is stated in section 2 cl
m and it is in relation to 503 i the Central Provinces includes an inferior proprietor a protected thekadar or other thekadar or protected headman ii the merged territories means a maufidar including an ex Ruler of an Indian State merged with Madhya Pradesh a Zamindar Ilaquedar Khorposhdar or Jagirdar within the meaning of wajib ul arz or any sanad deed or other instrument and a gaontia or a thekadar of a village in respect of which by or under the provisions contained in the wajib ul arz applicable to such village the maufidar the gaontia or the thekadar as the case may be has a right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in such village
The definition of mahal  is stated in section 2j and it is mahal in relation to merged territories means any area other than land in possession of a raiyat which has been separately assessed to land revenue whether such land revenue be payable or has been released compounded for or redeemed in whole or in part
Before the High Court the appellant contended that he was still a Sovereign Ruler and absolute owner of the villages specified in Schedules A and B of his petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
He urged that his rights had been recognized and guaranteed under the agreements entered into by him with the Government of India
The provisions of the Act therefore did not apply to him
It was further contended that the provisions of the Act did not apply to a Ruler or to the private property of a Ruler which was not assessed to land revenue
He relied on article 6 of the Instrument of Accession and the first paragraph of article 3 of the Merger Agreement
The High Court held that if the petitioner s rights under article 6 of the Instrument of Accession and article 3 of the Merger Agreement had been infringed it was clear from the provisions of article 363 of the Constitution that interference by the courts was barred in disputes arising out of these two instruments
The High Court was also of the opinion that article 362 of the Constitu tion was of no assistance to the appellant
504 After referring to the definition of the word proprietor  in the Act the High Court was of the opinion that the word maufidar  in section 2m of the Act had not been used in any narrow or technical sense
A maufidar  was not only a person to whom a grant of maufi lands had been made but was also one who held land which was exempt from the payment of rent or tax
It accordingly rejected the contention on behalf of the appellant that the word maufidar  is necessarily confined to a grantee from the State or Ruler and therefore a Ruler could not conceivably be a maufidar
The High Court also rejected the contention on behalf of the appellant that as he was a Ruler within the meaning of that expression in article 36622 of the Constitution he did not come within the expression ex Ruler  as contained in the definition of the word proprietor  in the Act
The expression Ruler  as defined in article 36622 of the Constitution applied only for interpreting the provisions of the Constitution
The expression ex Ruler  given in the Act must therefore be given the ordinary dictionary meaning
According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Ruler  means one who or that which exercises rule especially of a supreme or sovereign kind
One who has control management or head ship within some limited sphere
The High Court accordingly took the view that although the appellant did exercise such a rule in the past he ceased to exercise it in his former Domain after the agreements of accession and merger had come into operation
Accordingly the appellant must be regarded as an ex Ruler and as he was also a maufidar he fell within the definition of the word proprietor  in the Act
The question whether the villages mentioned in Schedules A and B of the petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution fell in any of the categories Estates Mahals Alienated lands was also considered by the High Court
In its opinion they did not fall within the category of Estates or Alienated lands but they did fall within the category of Mahals
According to the definition of Mahal  in section 2j of the Act the same must be separately assessed to land 505 revenue
According to the appellant they had not been assessed to land revenue but this was denied on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh
The High Court was of the opinion that in these circumstances it was for the appellant to establish that the villages in question had never been assessed to land revenue but no evidence had been led to this effect
On the contrary according to the High Court it would appear from the documents on the record that the villages known as Bhandar villages  had been assessed to land revenue
As the rest of the villages in Schedule A and the villages in Schedule B upto the date of the High Court judgment had not been recognized as the private property of the appellant by the Government of India as required by the second and third paragraphs of the Merger Agreement the appellant could not assert his ownership over them
The High Court accordingly dismissed his petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
Two questions in the main were urged before us 1 whether the appellant is a proprietor within the meaning of that expression in the Act and 2 whether the villages in question came within the definition of the word mahal  contained in the Act
On behalf of the appellant it had also been urged that the Act could not defeat the rights of the appellant guaranteed under article 3 of the Merger Agreement
It seems clear to us however that in view of the provisions of article 3631 of the Constitution any dispute arising out of the Merger Agreement or the Instrument of Accession is beyond the competence of the courts to enquire into
The High Court rightly decided this point against the appellant
With reference to the first point we would first consider whether the appellant is an ex Ruler for the purposes of the Act
That he is so factually cannot be denied since he ceded his State to the Government of India to be integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar now the State of Madhya Pradesh in such manner as the Government of India thought fit
He further ceded to the Government  of India full and exclusive authority jurisdiction and powers in relation 506 to the governance of his State when he agreed that the administration of that State would be transferred to the Government of India as from January 1 1948
The question is whether his recognition for the purposes of the Constitution as Ruler by virtue of the provisions of article 36622 of the Constitution of India continues his status as a Ruler for purposes other than the Constitution
article 36622 states  Ruler in relation to an Indian State means the Prince Chief or other person by whom any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in clause 1 of article 291 was entered into and who for the time being is recognised by the President as the Ruler of the State and includes any person who for the time being is recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler
Article 291 refers to the privy purse payable to Rulers
It states Where under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State before the commencement of this Constitution the payment of any sums free of tax has been guaranteed or assured by the Government of the Dominion of India to any Ruler of such State as privy purse a such sums shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India and b the sums so paid to any Ruler shall be exempt from all taxes on income
 Article 291 refers to any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State before the commencement of the Constitution
The covenant or agreement referred to in this Article certainly includes the Instrument of Accession and the Merger Agreement
The effect of the Merger Agreement is clearly one by which factually a Ruler of an Indian State ceases to be a Ruler but for the purposes of the Constitution and for the purposes of the privy purse guaranteed he is a Ruler as defined in article 36622 of the Constitution
There is nothing in the provisions of article 36622 which requires a court to recognise such a person as a Ruler for purposes outside the Constitution
In our opinion the High Court rightly held that 507 the appellant was an ex Ruler and that article 36622 of the Constitution did not make him a Ruler for the purposes of the Act
As the appellant was an ex Ruler  he was within the class of persons who were by name specifically included in the definition of proprietor  and therefore clearly within the scope of the Act
That the appellant was not only an ex Ruler but a maufidar appears to us to be clear
The ordinary dictionary meaning of maufi is Released exempted exempt from the payment of rent or tax rent free and maufidar is A holder of rent free land a grantee
It was common ground in the High Court that the villages in question were exempt from the payment of rent or tax
In our opinion the High Court rightly took the view that the expression maufidar  was not necessarily confined to a grantee from a State or a Ruler of a State
A maufidar could be a person who was the holder of land which was exempted from the payment of rent or tax
In our opinion the appellant certainly came within the expression maufidar  besides being an ex Ruler  of an Indian State merged with Madhya Pradesh
It is however contended on behalf of the appellant that the most important part of the definition was the concluding portion where it was stated that in the case of a maufidar he must be a person who by or under the provisions contained in the wajib ul arz applicable to his village had the right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in such village
It was contended that even if the appellant was a maufidar there was nothing to show that with reference to any village held by him it was entered in the wajib ul arz that he had a right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in such village
In the petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the appellant in the High Court it was nowhere asserted that even if he was regarded as a maufidar it was not entered in the wajib ul arz with respect to any of his maufi villages that he had a right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in such villages
From the judgment of the High 508 Court it would appear that no such argument was advanced before it
In the application for a certificate under article 1321 of the Constitution we can find no mention of this
In the statement of the case filed in this Court also there is no mention of this fact
There is thus no material on the record to establish that the appellant as a maufidar had no right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in his villages
The burden was on the appellant to prove this fact which he never attempted to discharge
It is impossible therefore to accept this contention on behalf of the appellant raised for the first time before us in the course of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant
Regarding the second point arising out of the definition of Mahal  the High Court definitely found that the petitioner had given no evidence to establish that the villages in question were not assessed to land revenue
On the contrary at least with reference to the Bhandar villages documents on the record showed that these villages had been assessed to land revenue
Since it was a question of fact whether the villages had been assessed to land revenue which was denied on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh the High Court rightly held that the contention of the appellant in this respect could not be accepted
As for the other villages in Schedules A and B of the petition of the appellant under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the High Court in our opinion rightly held that the petition was not maintainable as these villages had not yet been recognised by the Government of India as the private property of the appellant
In our opinion the appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was the Ruler of the State of Baster which was later integrated with the State of Madhya Pradesh
He was recognised by the President as a Ruler under article 36622 of the Constitution
The respondent resumed certain lands belonging to the appellant under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates Mahals Alienated Lands Act 1950
The appellant contended that he was still a Ruler and not an ex Ruler and as such did not come within the definition of proprietor given in the Act
Held that the appellant was an ex Ruler for the purposes of the Act and was within the class of persons who were by name included in the definition of proprietor  and was within the scope of the Act
Factually the appellant was an ex Ruler
He was a Ruler for the purposes of the privy purse guaranteed to him
There was nothing in article 36622 which required a court to treat such a person as a Ruler for purposes outside the Constitution
Further the appellant was also a maufidar in respect of the lands acquired which were exempt from the payment of rent or tax
The expression maufidar was not necessarily confined to a grantee from a State or a Ruler of a State he could be the holder of land which was exempted from payment of rent or tax