# Ifft Ft6rum 20. 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. AMARSARJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUN.JAR

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 346
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-05-25
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, IC SunnA RAO, N. Rajaoopa!.A Ayyanoar, J. R. MuonoJ, Kar, T. L. Vexkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ifft-ft6rum-20-346-supreme-court-reports-1962-supp-amarsarjit-singh-v-the-state-2384
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Resumption of jaqirs-Gis-Sutkj .fa7irs___:. lagirdars, if
wvereigns-Assignment of ret·en1te by Rritislt Corrrnme11t-l1nplied grant-Legislatii•e conipetence of tn1:u:tn1ent-'l1ltr. l'unjub
Ruumption of Jagirs Act, 1957 (Pttnjah 39 .nf J.'Jii7), '"· 2( 1),
2(5)-Gon.•litution of India, Sei:enth Scherlule, Ust II, entrie"
18, 4:i.
The Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957, came into
force on November 14, 1957, and the State of Punjab proceeded to take action thereunder for resuming the jagirs.
The petitioners who were holders of certain jagirs in that
State known as the Cis-Sutlej jagirs claimed that they could
not be resumed under the pro\'i•ions of the Art because they
did not fall within the definition of Jagir contained ins. 2(1)
of the Act on the grounds that there was at no time any grant
of the Cis-Sutlej jagirs to their holders. much less any assignment of land revenue to them, and that even if there was
such 11 grant, it was not one made by or on behalf of the
State Government as required bys. 2(1) (a) of the Act. The
history or the,. jagirs showed that the jagirdars were originally
rulers of the territories when they took possession of them by
conquest in I i63, hut in course of time after the British came
on the scene, they were wadually stripped of all their powers
as sovereigns, and in 1852 the British took over the collection of revenue of the jagir lands and out of the collections the
jagirdan were paid their share. Subseq tJen t to 1852 there
was a course of legislation relating to the jagirs. The ques•
tion was v.•hether the assignment of land revenue to the CisSutlej jagirdars was made on the basis of aR implied grant.
The petitioners case was that as the Cis-Sutlej Chiefs were
never
conquered,
the payment of lancl revenue to them
must be related to their status as
~overeigns and that the
collection of the land revenue was made only under an implied arrangement with them.
Held, that the status of the Ci1-Sutlej jagirclars was only
!hat of subjects and that the payment of revenue to them by
-
-
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
347
the British Government was only on the basis of an implied
grant to them.
Though the Cis-Sutlej Chief were not. ~onquered .by
the British, since the latter were in fact exerc1s1ng sovereign
powers over the area it must be held that sovereignty had
passed to them otherwise than by conquest.
Mfs. Dalmia Dadri Cement 'ao. Ltd. v. The Oommissione;
of Income-tax, [1959] S. C. R. 729, Thakur Amar Singji v.
State of Rajasthan, [1955] 2 S. C.R. 303 and Vajesingji Jorawar
Singji v. Secretary of State, [1924] L.R. 51 I.A. 35 7, relied on.
Held, further that the British Government which had
made the grant was the «State Government" within the
meaning of s. 2(5) of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act
1957, and that the Jagirs in question' were within the definition of "Jagir" in s.2(1) of the Act.
Held, also, that the Act was within the legislative competence of the State of Punjab under entries 18 and 45 of
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
0RrGINAL JcrarSDICTION: Petitions Nos. 82 of
1960 and 148, 168 to 174 and 357 to 361of1961.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution
of India for the. enforcement of Fundamental
Itights.
WITH
Civil Appeals Nos. 453 to 474 of 1961.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
May 25, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Civil
Writ Nos. 428, 303, 398, 402, 459 to 462, 421, 472,
473, 475, 490, 503, 509, 519, 520, 555, 590, 710 and
. 712 of 1958.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated May 25, 1959, of the Punjab High
Court in Civil Writ No. 347 of 1958.
Achhru Ram and Naunit Lal, for the petit!oner (in Petn. No. 82 of 60) and the appella,qt
(m C. A. No. 50 of 62).
'
•
',
'
r
1982
Amat'8af'jit Singh
v.
.
The State of Punjab
1962
AmarsMjil Sin1A
v.
T/i, St.,, of Punjal>
348 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
l. N. Shroff, for tho pctition0rs (in Petn. No. 148
of 61) and the appellants (in C.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,982 of 43,775. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39982 for what follows._

Ifft
Ft6rum 20.
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
AMARSARJIT SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUN.JAR
(AND CONNECTED PETITION'S AND APPEALS)
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., IC SunnA RAO, N. RAJAOOPA!.A
AYYANOAR, J. R. MuonoJ,KAR and T. L.
VEXKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ,)
Resumption of jaqirs-Gis-Sutkj .fa7irs___:. lagirdars, if
wvereigns-Assignment of ret·en1te by Rritislt Corrrnme11t-l1nplied grant-Legislatii•e conipetence of tn1:u:tn1ent-'l1ltr. l'unjub
Ruumption of Jagirs Act, 1957 (Pttnjah 39 .nf J.'Jii7), '"· 2( 1),
2(5)-Gon.•litution of India, Sei:enth Scherlule, Ust II, entrie"
18, 4:i.
The Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957, came into
force on November 14, 1957, and the State of Punjab proceeded to take action thereunder for resuming the jagirs.
The petitioners who were holders of certain jagirs in that
State known as the Cis-Sutlej jagirs claimed that they could
not be resumed under the pro\'i•ions of the Art because they
did not fall within the definition of Jagir contained ins. 2(1)
of the Act on the grounds that there was at no time any grant
of the Cis-Sutlej jagirs to their holders. much less any assignment of land revenue to them, and that even if there was
such 11 grant, it was not one made by or on behalf of the
State Government as required bys. 2(1) (a) of the Act. The
history or the,. jagirs showed that the jagirdars were originally
rulers of the territories when they took possession of them by
conquest in I i63, hut in course of time after the British came
on the scene, they were wadually stripped of all their powers
as sovereigns, and in 1852 the British took over the collection of revenue of the jagir lands and out of the collections the
jagirdan were paid their share. Subseq tJen t to 1852 there
was a course of legislation relating to the jagirs. The ques•
tion was v.•hether the assignment of land revenue to the CisSutlej jagirdars was made on the basis of aR implied grant.
The petitioners case was that as the Cis-Sutlej Chiefs were
never
conquered,
the payment of lancl revenue to them
must be related to their status as
~overeigns and that the
collection of the land revenue was made only under an implied arrangement with them.
Held, that the status of the Ci1-Sutlej jagirclars was only
!hat of subjects and that the payment of revenue to them by
-
-
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
347
the British Government was only on the basis of an implied
grant to them.
Though the Cis-Sutlej Chief were not. ~onquered .by
the British, since the latter were in fact exerc1s1ng sovereign
powers over the area it must be held that sovereignty had
passed to them otherwise than by conquest.
Mfs. Dalmia Dadri Cement 'ao. Ltd. v. The Oommissione;
of Income-tax, [1959] S. C. R. 729, Thakur Amar Singji v.
State of Rajasthan, [1955] 2 S. C.R. 303 and Vajesingji Jorawar
Singji v. Secretary of State, [1924] L.R. 51 I.A. 35 7, relied on.
Held, further that the British Government which had
made the grant was the «State Government" within the
meaning of s. 2(5) of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act
1957, and that the Jagirs in question' were within the definition of "Jagir" in s.2(1) of the Act.
Held, also, that the Act was within the legislative competence of the State of Punjab under entries 18 and 45 of
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
0RrGINAL JcrarSDICTION: Petitions Nos. 82 of
1960 and 148, 168 to 174 and 357 to 361of1961.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution
of India for the. enforcement of Fundamental
Itights.
WITH
Civil Appeals Nos. 453 to 474 of 1961.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
May 25, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Civil
Writ Nos. 428, 303, 398, 402, 459 to 462, 421, 472,
473, 475, 490, 503, 509, 519, 520, 555, 590, 710 and
. 712 of 1958.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated May 25, 1959, of the Punjab High
Court in Civil Writ No. 347 of 1958.
Achhru Ram and Naunit Lal, for the petit!oner (in Petn. No. 82 of 60) and the appella,qt
(m C. A. No. 50 of 62).
'
•
',
'
r
1982
Amat'8af'jit Singh
v.
.
The State of Punjab
1962
AmarsMjil Sin1A
v.
T/i, St.,, of Punjal>
348 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
l. N. Shroff, for tho pctition0rs (in Petn. No. 148
of 61) and the appellants (in C. As. Nos. 457 to
474. of !ii).
Har(lei: SiW]h and Y. Knmar for the petitioners (in Petm. Nos. 168 to 174 a~d 357 to 361
of6l).
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, K. L.
Go.sain,
B. R. L. Iyengar, Lak.sltm.1'. Cliand and J. N.
Shroff, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos 453 and
4f>6 of 1961 ).
K. L. Gosain, B. R. L. Iyengar, Lakshmi Chand
-
and 1. N. Shroff, for the appellants (in C. A. No. 454
of 19fil ).
B. R. L. lyeW]ar, Lakshmi, Chand and 1.N.Shroff,
for the appellant; (in C. A. N'o. 455 of 1961 ).
S. ill. Si kn'., Advocate.General, for the Stale of
Punjab, N. S. Bindm and P. D. J!enon, for the respondents (in all petitions a.ml Civil App ea.ls).
M. C. Sctalva.d, Attonwy-Gcneral of India., J. B.
n111fachanji, 0. C. Matlmr and Ravinder Narain, for
fncervoner Xo. l (Sa.tinder Singh).
K. L. ;}fchta, for Intervener No. 2 (l{aghvindcr
folingh and others).
1962. February 20. The .Judgment of the
Court-was delivPred by
VENKATARA~IA AIYAR, J.-The qurstion that
a.rises for our decision in the a.hove writ petitions
and appeals is whether certain ja.girs in tho State of
Punjab known as the "Cis-Sutlej" jagir a.re liable to
he resumed under . the provisions of the Punjab
Resumption of Ja.girs Act, Hl.57 (Punjtib Act N'o.
;l!) of 1957), hereinafter referred to a.s "the Act".
This Act came into force on Novcm~er 14, 1957,
imd the respondent State then procpeded to t~ke
action thereunder for
resuming the ja.girs.
A
p~mber of rititions were ~hereupon filed in tho
-
'
-
.
'
~
I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1901
Amarsarjil Singh
. v.
High Court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Act, and of
the proceedings taken by the respondent State
·thereunder on the ground, firstly, that the Act was
altra ·vires the powers of the State Legislature and
that its provisions were unconstitutional and void ;
and, secondly, that even if the Act was intra vfres
the jagirs held by the petitioners were not "jagirs"
Tiu Sl•I• of Punjab
as defined in the Act, and were therefore not liable
to be resumed under its provisions.
By their
judgment dated May 25, 1959, the learned Judges
held that the legislation was within the competence
of the State, and that it did not contravence any of
the constitutional provisions.
They further held ,,.
that the jagirs held by the petitioners fell within the
definition of "jagir" under the Act, and were liable
to be resumed thereunder, and that accordingly
no writ could be issued against the State for proceeding under the provisions of the Act.
By thflir
Order dated January 27, 1960, the learned Judges
granted leave to appeal to this Court under Art.
133 (1) (a), and pursuant to the same, Civil Appeals
Nos. 453 to 474 of 1961 have been preferred to
this Court.
Appeal No. 50 of 1962 by special
leave is also directed against the Judgment of the
Punjab High Court in a Writ Petition under Art.
226. Some of the jagirdars have also filed petitions
in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution,
impugning the Act and the action of the State
thereunder on the same grounds as those raised in
the appeals. We have accordingly heard arguments
of learned Counsel both in the writ petitions· and
in the appeals, and this Judgment will govern all
of them.
Though a number of grounds have been taken
in the pleadings, impugning the Act as ultra vires
and
its provisions as unconstitutional, in the
argument before us, the only contention that was
pressed was that the Cis-Sutlej jagirs do not fall
Ai)ar J
1962
Anr1trsarjit Singh
••
T,., State of Pwijab
A0ior J.
350 sbPRkME CODRT REPORTS (i962J sbi?i>.
within the definition of jagirs contained in the Act
and that accordingly tho State had no authority
to resume them under the provisions of the Act .
And this contention is sought to be sustained on
two ground: ( i) that there was at no time any
grant of tho Cis-Sutlej jagirs to their holders, much
less any assignment of land revenue to thein; and
(ii) . that even if there was such a grant, it
was not one made by or on
behalf of tho State
Government as required bys. 2 (1). It is argued
that if either of these contentions
succeeds, the
jagirs in question would fall
outside the purview
of the Act, and the State would have no right undl'r its provisions to resume them.
It will be convenient at this stage to set out
the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2 (I)
defines "jagir" as follows:-
,, ''Ju~ir'' mcans-
(a) any assignment of land revenue made
by or on
behalf of the State Government;
or
(b) any estate in
la.nd creat-ed or afiir'-
med by or on behalf of the
State Government cnrrying with it the right of collecting
land revenue or receiving any portion of tho
land revenue; or
(c)· any grant of money made or continued by or on behalf of the
State Government which purports to be or is ex pressed
to be payable out of the land revenue;
or
(d) any grant of money including anything payable on the part of the State Government in respect of any right, privilego, perquisite or office; and
includes any such grant or assignmrnt existing in favour of Cis-Sutlej jagirdars."
I
3 s.c.R.·
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS
35i
"Jagirdar" is definer:] in 's. 2 (2) as meaning the holder of a jagir. Section 2 (5) defines
State Government as follows:-
"State Government" -
(a) as respects any period before the
1st November 1956, shall mean:-
(i) . the Government of the Patiala
and East Punjab State Union or any of
the Indian States whioh formed into the
Patiala and East Punjab States Union on
the 20th August, 1948 and
(ii) the Government of the State of
Punjab and all predecessor Governments
thereof by whatever· name called, the
Governor-General or the Governor-General in.Council, as the case may be, and
t.he Sikh Rulers, but shall not include the
Central Government as defined in the
General Clauses Act,
1897, after the
period commencing on the 15th August,
1947.
(b)
as respects any period after the lat
November, 1956 shall mean the Government
of the State of Punjab."
Section 3 enacts that-
"N otwithstanding anything to the. contrary contained in any law or usage any grant
settlement, sanad or other instrument, or any
decree or order of any
Court or authority,
all jagirs shall, ou and from. the commencement of this Act, be extinguished and stand
resumed in the name of the State Government.
It ie common ground that the jagirs which are
concerned in the present writ petitions and appeals .
consist of a right to the revenue payable on lands,
and not of any estate such as wi)l fall under s. 2 (1)
(b) of the Act and that they must fall, if at all within s. 2 (1) (a). Therefore the discussion narrows
1961
Amarsarjit Singh
I
Y.
-
Tiu Stde of Pu•j•b
A!1ar J.
i962
Amarsnrjir Singh
'
n~ State of Punjab
.1i)!lf' .i.
~52 SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS (1962j SUPP,
itself to the question whether there was, as required by s. :! (I) (a) of the Act, any assignm!'nt. of the
revenue of these jagirs and whether such assignment
was by tho State Government .
On the first question, as to whether there
was assignment of land revenue, the contention of
the petitioners and of tho appellants-and they
will hereafter be reforred to compendiously as
jagirdars-is that the so called jagirs are not jagirs
as ordinarily understood, that they were not the
subject matters of any grant
by any State that
they were in fact originally independent States h!!l<l
by rulers with sovereign rights, that in course of
time the British Governm1·nt impos!·<l their Sv\'!>
reignty over them; and finally took over the admi ·
nistration of the State and paid the revenue collect·
cd therefrom to the rulers, not as person to whom
the land-revenue had been a8signed, because th<'re
was no such assignment but as
sovereigns of the
States. Therefore, it is contended, the co-callc<l
jagirs are not within the difinition of s. 2 ( 1).
That brings us on to the question of the true
status of the Cis-Sutlej
jagirdars. The origin of
these jagirs goos baek to 1763, The collapse of the
Moghul Empire had created a void in the political
stage of this country, and many were
the powers
which Htepped in with the ambition of establishing their sovereignty. The British had established their rule and }1ad extended their dominion up
to the Jumna. The Sikhs had also developed during this period from being a purely religious sect
into a military organisation, and established several States beyond the 8utlej. The tract of territory between the J umna and thE> 8utlej was at this
time under tho administration of a weak Afghan
Governor called Zain Khan. The
policy
of the
British during this period was to hold ·the J umna
as the frontier, and so they ·were indifferent to tho
fate of this Cis-Sutlej area., But the Sikh Chiefs
-
3 s.c.k.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
353
beyond the Sutlej could not resist the temptation
of overthrowing the Afghan Governor, seizing his
territory and establishing themselves as its rulers.
In 1763 the storm burst when a number of them
crossed the Sutlej, overwhelmed the ·Afghan Governor and occupied the whole country upto Jumna.
"Tradition slill describes", says Cunningham in his
History of the Sikhs, P. llO, "how the Sikhs dispersed as soon as the battle was won and how riding day and night ea.ch horseman would throw his
belt and scabbard, his articles of dress and accoutrement, until he was almost naked into successive
villages to mark them ·as.his." When the conqu·
est was over each Chief declared himself the ruler
of the territory which he was able to occupy, and
constituted himself its sovereign.
This state of affairs continued until 1806.
By this time, Ranjit Singh the "Lion of the Punjab",
had built up a powerful State across the Sutlej.
He had already subdued the petty rulers within
that area and was turning his attention to the territories south of the Sutlej and had occupied some
of them. The Cis-Sutlej rulers became alarmed
about their future and appealed for protection to
the British, who had, by this time, changed their
policy of non-intervention. The appeal was welcome, and met wjt,h prompt resporise.
The result
was that in 1809 the British entered into a treaty
with Ranjit Singh whereby he surrendered his acquisitions south of Sutlej and agreed not to interfere with the Cis-Sutlej States. And this was followed by a proclamation by Colonel Ochterlony in May
1809 whereby the Cis-Sutlej Chiefs were assured of
their rights as sole owners of their possessions· and
exempted from payment of tribute, but were required to furnish supplies to the Britijsh
Government
and assist them against their enemies.
The British
Government also promulgated a rule that whenever
any of the rulers died without issues, his State
would lapse to the British Government.
1962
Amarsarjit Singh
v.
The Stale of Punjab
A~arJ.
1962
.Amo1Ja1jil SinKh
v.
Tiu State of P11njob
A(Tar J.
!!54
.
•
'
1
;
•
·
i
)
.
'
1
"
I
•
SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1962] StJPP.
This was the position until 1846 when a drastic change in the situaticn totk place. Jn 1845,
thnc was war bet ween the British and the Sikhs,
and in that war the Cis·Sutlej rulers far from help·
ing the Rritish ag iinst the Trans Sutlej Sikhs, were
either unsympathetically neutral or actively hostile
to them, and that brought about a change in the
policy of the British Government towards them.
The position is thus stated by Kensington
in tho
Ambala Gazetteer at p. 26:-
"Having thus i~lrcacly lost the confidence
of the Government the Sikh Chiefs in the
Sutlej cam pa ig11 forfieted all claim to cons id·
cration. It was seen that the time had arrived
for the introduction of sweeping measures of reform anj the Government unhesitatingly resolv·
ed upon a reduction of their privileges. Several
important measures were at once adopted.
The police jurisdiction of most of the chiefs
was abolished, the existing system being most
unfavourable to the detection and punishment of crime.
All transit and customs d1Jt·
ics were also abolished; and thirdly, a commutation was accepted for the personal service
of the chief and his contingent. The despat·
ch of the Governor General embodying this
resolution was dated November 7th, 1846."
While
the sweeping
changes
aforesaid
were
being introduced, the second Sikh War broke out and
that ended in the annexation of tho Punjab. And with
that the ne<'d for maintaining appearances and for
recognising the Cis-Sutlej Chiefs as rulera came to
an end. The British Government then proceeded
to act swiftly and firmly, and in June, 1849, they
made n declaration that the Chiefs should "cease to
hold sovereign powers, should lose all criminal, civil
and fiscal jurisdiction, and should be considered as
no more than ordinary subjects of the British
Government in the posseSBion of certain exceptional
'
3 s.c.:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
355
privileges" (').
Pursuant to this declaration, the
Chiefs were stripped of all their governmental functions,and the final denouement took place in l1S52 when
the British took over the collection of revenue for
the j~gir lands. The rules for settlement of revenue
were made by them, and the actual settlement and
collection of revenue were made under their authority, and out of the collections the jagirdars were
paid their share.
On these facts, the question is whether it can
be said that their was an assignment of the land
revenue to the jagirdars. Express grants to th em,
there were none.
The point in debate before us is
whether grants of the land revenue could be
implied from the facts stated above.
A somewhat similar question came up for
decision before this Court in Thakar Amar Singhji
v. State of Rajasthan (') with reference to a class of
jagirdars in the State of Rajasthan known as
Bhomicharas. They were once the rulers ofthe
territories which were claimed to be jagirs, and
later on the State of J odhpur imposed its suzerainty ·
over them and exacted an annual payment called
"Foujbal". The Bhomicharas contended that they
had come into possession of the territories as rulers
and held them as rulers and not as jagirdars under
grants made by any ruler. In repelling this contention, this Court held that a grant may be implied as .
well as express, and that on the facts which were
proved, the Bhomi1,haras, though they held originally as rulers, must be held to have been reduced
to the status of subjects, and that their position
was that of jagirdars under an implied grant. The
position of the Cis·Sutlej jagirdars bears a close
analogy to that of the Bhomicharas in Thakur Amar
Singhji's case (').
They became rulers of the
territories when thty took possession of them by
conquest in 1763.
The first inroads iμto their
"'
(1) Griffin's ·•Rajas of the Punjab", P. 19~.
\2)
[1955] 2 S.C.R. 303,
1962
Amarsarjit Sinth
v.
The State of Pt1r1iab
Aiyar J.
1962
AmtrrJa1ji1 Sin,i:,h
v.
Th, Str.t~ of Punjab
Aiyar I.
356
•
•
•·
1 •I l•
SVPRE:ME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
sovereignly wPre made in 1809 when the British
established their suzerainty over them and further
dcclarecl th,tl the territories of the rulers who died
without hl'irs would c~eheat to them. Then in 184G
the British Government deprived them of police
j11risdiction, and the power to levy customs, and in
1849, of all their sovereign functions.
It is not
disputed that as a result of all these acts tlwy were
reduced to tho position of ordinary subject.~. that
indeed being the' objective of the British Govern!
ment as avowed in their •kclaratioTl of J11ne, 18!9.
It is with referPnce to this background that we must
examine the true charnctcr of thn rev1·mw
'etth~
rucnt made in 18:"i2.
lf the jagirdars had sunk to
the position of suhjc8ts on that date tho payment
of revenues to them by the British Government can
only be on the basis of an implied grant to them.
Ll'arned Counsel for the jagirdars however
demur to this conclusion. They contend that the
position of the Cis-Sutlej jagirclars differs fundarnenta.lly from that of the Bhomicharas in Tooba Amar
Singhji'8 r;ise ('), that the latter were conquered by
the rulers of J odhpur and com polled to pay to them
a tribute er.lied "Foujhal", but that the Cis-Sutlej
Chiefs were never conquered by the British, and
never paid any tribute to them, that they were
receiving revenue from tho lands as rulers before
the British came on tho scene, and that they continued to receive the s<irnc without a break even aftor
tho British had established themRelves, and that
there was nothing which the British Uoverument
did from which a resumption and a re-grant could
be inferred.
Under tho circumstances, it is said,
tho payment of land revenue to them must be
related to their status as sovereigns, and if the
British Governrn('nt took upon themselves the work
of settlement and collection of land revenue, it was
\I) [ l!l55] 2. S. C.R. 303.
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
357
on their behalf and under their authority and under
an implied a,rrangement with them.
The assumption underlying this argument jg
that as th 9 Cis-~u tlej Cfliefs Wdre not conquered by
the British, th~ir s~atui mus\ neoJisarily be th'1t of
sovereigns, and that in consequ9nce the payment of
hnd revenue to them could not ·be as jagirdars
holding under an implied grant from the Government. ThJ.t, however, is not correct. It is settled
law that conquest is not the only mode by which
one State can acquire sovereignty over the territories belonging to another State, and that the same
result can be achieved in any other mode which has
the effect of establishing its sovereignty.
Thus,
discussing what is an "act of State", the Judicial
Committee observed in Cook v. Sir James Gordon
Sprigg (1) :-
"The taking possession by Her Majesty,
whether by cession or by any other means by
which sovereignty can be acquired, was an act
of State."
To the same effect are
the following observations of Lord Dc1nedin in Vajesingji Joravarsingji v.
Secretary of State for India in Council (2) :-
•'When a territory is acquired by a sovereign State for the first time, that is an act of
State. It matters not how the ac,q Liisition
has been brought about.
It may be by
conquest, it mly be by cession following on
treaty, it may be by occupation of territory
hitherto unoccupied by a recognised ruler." ·
Laying down the law iu
similar terms,
this
Court observed in M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd.
v. The Commissioner of Income-tax(') :-
"The expression 'act of State' is, it
i~
scarcely necessary to:say,~not limited to hostile
(1)
(1899) A.C. 572.
(2) (1923-24) L. R. 51I.A.357.
(3) (1959) $.C.R. 729, 739.
1962
Amarsarjit Singh
v.
The Slate of Punjab
Aiya' J.
19~2
Am~snjU Sing~
Y.
Tft Wu1 •f Punjob
... !1 .. J.
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
action between rulers resulting in the occupation of territories. It includes all acquisitions
of territory by a sovereign St.1tn for the first
time, whether it ho by ponquest or cession.
Vide Vajesint;ji Joravar Singji v. Su.reiary
of State and Thakur Amqr S1'.nyji V· State of
Rajastha n . "
And, more
recently,
this question has
been
considered bv this Court in Prorn.od Chandra Deh
v. The State oj Ori.~sa (•), and the result was thus
stated:-
" 'Act of State' is the taking over of
sovereign powers by a Mate in respect of
territory which was not till thon a part of its
territory, either by conquest; treaty or 0ession,
or otherwise."
The fact, therefore, that tho Cis-Sutlcj jagirdars
were not conqucr<·d by the British doPs not conclude
the question as to whether they aro to be regarded
as sovereigns or not. That must depend on who
were in fact exorcising sovereign powers over the
territories in the States-the ChicfR or the British.
If the latter, then it must be held that the sovereignty over the area had pa.qscd to them, otherwise
than by conquest, and that the true status of the
Chiefs was that of subjects.
Viewed in this light, the case does not present
much of a problem. It has beon already seen that
from 1809 onwards, the Chiefs had been gradually
stripped of their powers as so\'<'reigns :rnd that the
process uf diHintegr1>tion was completed in 1849.
It is indeed conceded on behalf of the jaginlars
that after that datu it was the British Government
which was exercising sovereign pow<'rs.over th•. territories and that the Chiefs had been redt1ced to the
status of its subjects.
But tho contention that is
urgC'd is that nvon when every thing else had hccn
{IJ \.Vri1 Petitions Nos. 79 of l957, 16i and lGa of
19~·8 and 4 of 1959
dtcided on November, 16, 1961.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
359
lost, there was still one relic of sovereignty left
with them and that was the right to receive the
land revenue. If this were the true position, the
status of the jagirdars would. be that of subjects of
the British in respect of all matters except as to
the right to receive revenue, in respect of which
alone they would have to be regarded as sovereigns.
This is clearly untenable, because a person cannot
be both a sovereign and a subject at the same time.
Dealing with this identical contention, this Court
obderved in Thakur Amar Singhji's case (1):
"The status of'a person must be eit!ier
that of a sovereign or a subject. There is no
tertium quid. The law does not recognise an·
intermediate Htatus of a. person being partly a
sovereign and partly a subject, and when once
it is admitted that the Bhomicharas had acknowledged the sovereignty of Jodhpur their
status can only be that of a subject. A subject
might occupy an exalted position and enjoy
special privileges, but he is none the less a
subject ; and even if the status of Bhomicharas
might be considered superior to that of ordinary jagirdars,
they were also subjects."
(pp. 336-337)
If the statlld of the Cis-Sutlej jagirdars is in alJ
other respects that of subjects, the right to
receive the revenue collections must also be
ascribed to their character as subjects, and that can
only be under an implied grant.
But it is contended that the implication of a
grant in favour of the jagirdars could not be made
hne as in the case of Bhomichans in Thakur Amar
Singhji's case (1), because a propoHl for resumption
and re-grant of the territories of the Cis-Sutlej
Chiefs was actually put forward in 1846 but was
negatived. Reference wa.s made to the following .
(I) [!955] 2 S. C. R. 303,
19•1
Amarsarjit Singh
'·
The Stale of Punjab
Aiya,. J.
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
1'6t
account thert>of given in J. llf. Douie's "Punjab
Am•wujitSinih·
Land Administration Manual", 1931, p. 45 para
•.
102:-
11" Sl•I• oj l'unja!J
A(il.,. J.
"lt was indeed pruposl'd in 1846 after the
firot Sikh War to declare all the estates forfeit
on account of the !aches of their huldcro, and
to re-grant them under sanads from the Briti8h
Government. But Lord Har<linge deemed it
impolitic to proclaim to all Infoi the miscondllct of thi Ci>-Slltloj
Chief~ and n11){atived
propo3al.
In a sense th~n tlHi Cis-Sutlej
ja.girdars, great and sm ill, are m~diatized
rulers, and little though they have ag a bo<ly
deson·cd at our hands, this fact should not
be lost sight of in our dealings with them."
The argum'n~ is that though a grant 1,oul<l bo
implied in certain circumstances where nu express
grant was forthcoming, that could not be done when
a proposal for grant is shown to hawi btlen actively
_considered and rejected.
This contention svun<ls
plausible but brraks dO\\'n when the reason for the
rejection of the proptisal is examined.
That wa8,
as stated in the despatch of Vml Har<linge <lated
1\ovomber 17, 1846, that "a general measure of
resumption would create alarm and must be preceded by a public declaration of the disloyalty of_
the largest portion of the Sikh protected States
explaining the grounds of forfeiture," and this was
considered
inexpedient.
Consistently with thi.>
reason it is impossible to hold that the British
Government, in declining to make a re;mmption
and re-grant, intended to continue the recognition
of the Chiefs as sovereigns.
On the ut her hand,
the true inforence to he drawn i:; that the British
wanted to give the chieftains only the status of
jagirdars but for reasons of policy they sought to
do it in such manner as tu avoid publicity, an<l that
is why the proposal for making resumption and re·
grant was not adopted. In the very despatch of
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
361
Lord Hardinge dated November 17, 1846, wherein
the proposal for
resumption and re-grant was
dropped, it was stated that th3re was ho need for
it as the same ends could be obtained by adopting
certain measures such as the taking over of the
police admini3tration and customs a 1d the like.
The reason, therefore, for ·,ot making a resumption
and an express grant is one which would support an
inference of implied grant.
An argument is also sought to be built on the
dascription given of the Cis-Sutlej jagirdars as
"mediatized rulers" in ti.e extract from J.M. Douie's
"Punjab Land
Administration Manual" already
given, that their status is that of sovereigns.
This
expression was originally used with reference to
German Princes in Holy Roman Empire who, having
been at one time vassals of the Emperor, wtre rnbsequently subjugated by · other Princes who were
also vassals of the Emperor.
The meaning of the
word "mediatise" in modern usage is given in the
Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. VI, p. 292, as
"8.nnex (principality) to another State, leaving
former sovereign his title and (usually) more or less
of his rights of Government".
It might be correct
to speak of the Chiefs as mediatized rulers in 1846,
when, though depriv<'d of their powers in matters of
police and customs, they continued to exercise civil
and fiscal powers. But when they were divested in
1849 of <tll their Governmental powers they cei;sed
to be rulers, "mediatized" or otherwise, and when
the revenue settlements were made in 1852, they
had no vestige of sovereignty left in them, and had
become ordinary subjects of the British with some
privileges.
The true character of the revenue settlements
made with the Cis-Sntlej jagirdars is brought out
correctly, in our opini0n, in the following observations in Tiaden Powell's "Land Systems of British
lndia", Vol. II at p. 701;-
1962
Amarsarjit Singh
v.
The St>Jtt oj Pu if ab
AQtar J,
1962
Amarsarjil Singh
v.
Tiu Slate of Punjab
Aiyar J.
~2 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
"Undn our Settlement arrangcmcnt<i, the
jagirdar now receives the rcvenu'l, the original
land holding communities or individuals being
settled with
and retaining full proprietary
rights.
He in faet is a mere as~ignco of the
rovenue, taking part of what otherwiso would
go to the State."
Even more explicit is thfl statement of th" position
by Kensington in the Ambala Gazetterr, pp.27-28:-
"Tbe final step necessitated by the march
of events was taken in 1852 when the revenue
settlement begun for British villages in lt!47
was extended to thn villages of the chiefs.
Thereafter the chiefs havo coased to retain
any relics of their former power except that
they are still permitted to collect their revenues din•ct from
their villages, the cash
assignment of revenue.
They have sunk to
the position of jagirdarn but as such retain a
right to the revenue assigned to them in perpetuity."
It was argued by the learned Advocate-General who
appeared for the respondent th at subsequent to 1852
there has been a courS(• of legislation rolatin!l' to
tho jagirs which proceeds on tne basis that their
holders were subjects. Th!' preamble to the Punjab
Land Revenue Act, 1871 (Act 33 of 1871 ), under
which land revenue was settlecl is as follows:-
"Whereas the Government of India is by
law entitled to a proportion of tbc procl nee of
the land of thii Punjab to he from time to
time fixed by itself and whereas it is expedient
to ponsoliclato and define the law relating to
the settlement and collection thereof, and to
the duties of the Revenue Offic('rn "in the
Punjab."
·
It is under this Act that the rev<'ntlO Rettlnmm1t.11 for
the jagir lands aro also made. 'fhis Rhows that in
c:ll:eroisin~ fisoal iurisdiction, the British Government
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUJ:tT REPORTS
363.
considered itself as acting in its sovereign capacity.
Then there is Punjab Descent of Jagirs Act, 1900
(Punjab Act IV of 1900), which introduced in the
Punjab Laws Act, 1S72, ss. S to SC enacting rules of
descent "in respect of succession to any assignment
of land revenue" and providing for the recognition _
of successors to the deceased jagirdars by the Provincial Government on certain conditions specified
therein. We have then the Punjab Jagirs Act V of
1941 dealing with the same topic.
The preamble
to the Act states that "it is expedient to consolidate
the law governing the assignments of land revenue
and other grants hitherto known as jagirs, and to
make more precise provisions regarding the manner
in which such assignments are to be made or continued in the future."
J agir is defined in s. 2 in
terms substantially the same as under the present
Act.
This Act repeals ss. S to SC of the Punjab
1.aws Act, 1S72, which were inserted by the Punjab
Descent of Jagirs Act IV of 1900, and reproduces
them in ss. 7 to 10.
Section 7( l)(b) provides for the
acceptance by the jagirdars of the I ules of descent
framed by the Government by executing a written
instrument, and it has been stated before us that·
the jagirdars have accepted the rules in the manner
provided in the section. By way of sample, the
copy of the acceptance executed by the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. S2 of 1960 has been marked as
part of the record. On these materials, the conclusion would appear to be irresistible that the right
of the j t5irdtr& to receive .land revenue rests on
implied grants by the British Government.
It must be mentioned that in Abdul Ghafoor
Khan v. Amar arjit Singh, Regular Second Appeal No.
561 of 1946 in the Punjab High Court there are observations of the learned Judges, '.Vlahajan and Teja
Singh, JJ., that thPre was no gift of the jagir lands
or assignment of the land revenue by the British
Government to the Cis-Sutlej jagirdars, and they
a,re relied o~ as a-qthority for t4e co~tention t!i11t
1962
Amar1arjit S,ingh
••
The State of Punjab
A!Yar J,
1962
A-narsarjit Sing/a
••
("M Sta It of Punj tb
Afpar J,
·36! SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
there was no grant to them exprcs; or implied.
But tho p.:iint for decisio;l m that case was wh Jther
these jagirdars could alienate their iriterosts beyond
their life-time. It wa.s
h~ld that they could not
a.nd the reason therefor was thus Htated: ---
"After the annexation of the Punja.b they
(Oia-Sutlcj ja.girdars) were depr!vcd of all vestiges of sovereignty that still remained in them
and they wore transformed and given the status
of jagirdars, but their possessions, holding and
dominions whether in land or other properties liko forts and buildings wcro not in any
way disturbed or taken 1•way. They held
them in tho same status and
po~iLion as
before."
The dispute in that appeal related to properties of
the kind mentioned above and not to land revenue,.
and we are unable to regard the obdervations relied
on for the jagirdars as authority for the position that no gmnt in respect of the assignments
of tho land revenue could be implied in their
'favour.
In the result we must hold that the jagirs
which arc subject-matwr of these proceedings fall
within s. 2(l)(a) of the Act.
It is next contended that even if an assign·
ment of land revenue could be implied in favour
of the jagirdars, that could only be held to have
been made by the British Government and not by
the State Go'l'ernment as required by s. 2(l}(a),
and thnt, in consequence, the respondent had no
right to resume the jagirs in question under the
provisions of the Act. , \Vhatover force there might
havo been in thi~ contontion, if the question had to
be decided only on the terms of H. 2(l){a), we have
ins. 2(5) a dofinitiozi ot' State Government which
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORitS
365
is decisive of the question. According to that definition, "State Government" includes "the Government of the State of Punjrib, and all predecessor
Gevernments thereof, by whatever name called,
the Governor-General
or the
Governor-Generalin-Council as the case may be." It is not disputed that these words are wide enough to include.
the British Government which made the grant, but
it is contended that this definition was not in the
Act as originally enacted and was inserted by the
Punjab Resumption of Jagirs (Amendment) Act,
1959, and that the rights of the parties should be
determined in accordance with the law as it stood
prior to the amendment. There is no force in this
contention, because under s. 1(2) of the Amendment Act, retrospective operation is given to it as
from November 14, 1957.
But then it is urged th<tt the amendment was
not within the legislative competenc.e of the Legislature of the State of Punjab and is null and void.
The grounds therefor are thus stated in Petition
No. 82 of 1960 :-
"This is nothing but a colourable legislation. The State legislature has no authority
to convert Central . Government into State
Government and legislate on Central subject.
The so-called jagir being not a grant by the
State Government, the impugned Act has no
application and the amended definition of
State Government is a fraud on the Constitution." (para 17).
There is no substance in the contention that the
Amendment Act is colourable and incompetent. The
subject-matter of the legislation is resumption of
jagirs. Though the contention was raised in the
petitions that this was not a topic within the competence of the State Legislature, as there was no
such entry in List II to the Seventh Schedule, no
1962
A.maral'tjil Sin1h
v.
Th• 81,11 of Punj<
Ap.ar J.
1962
Am4rsarj1t Si11gh
••
Tht Stat. of Punjab
Ai1C1TJ.
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
argument was advanced in support of it. And clearly it could not b<', as legislation on resumption of
jagirs in onn relating to lands, and land revenue
and would clearly fall under entries 18 and 45 of
List II, which are as follows :
Entry 18 :-"Land, that is to say, rights
in or over land, land tenure including tho
relation of landlord and tenant, aRd the
collection of rents transfer and alienation of
agricultural lands; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization."
Entry 45 :- "Land revenue, including
the
asS('RSm<mt and collection of revenue,
the maintenance of lands records, survey
for revenue purposPS and records of rights,
and alienation of revenue."
If the principal legi@lation is intra i·ire8, it is difficult to see how an amendment thereof with respect
to mattera propel'ly pertaining to the subject-matter
covered by it could be ·ultrn vire8. It is immaterial fo,. tho purpose of resumption, whether t.he
lauds sought to be resumed were granted by the
State of Punjab as it is now cunstitute<l or by any
Government
which
preceded
it. So long as
the lnnds · nre within the State of Punjab, the
legislature
h'aR fnll competence to enact a law
providing for thcir resumption under entries l 8 and
45. Indeed if the words "made by or on behalf of
the State Government" in s. 2 (l )(a)
had
been
omitted in tho principal Act and
jagir defined
simply as "11.ny
assignm~nt of land
revemvi"
the legislation would have boen intra
'cirr,~. and in
that case the State could have resumed the jagirs
by whomsoover th<'y might have been granted. But
it chose to add the words "made by or on behalf
of the State Government", and that gave occasion
for the contention that, the legislation did not in
fact reach jagirs granted by the British Government. Then, with a view to clarify tho position,
,
-
-
3 s.ci.it.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
367
and set the controversy at rest, the legislature
I96S
intervened
and enacted
the Amendment Act
Amarsarjit Singh
of 1959, inserting the impugned definition of "State
v.
Government".