{"id":161168,"date":"1954-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954"},"modified":"2015-11-11T02:18:04","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T20:48:04","slug":"raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954","title":{"rendered":"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja &#8230; on 2 February, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja &#8230; on 2 February, 1954<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR  259, \t\t  1954 SCR  748<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M C Mahajan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAJ RAJENDRA MALOJIRAO SHITOLE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT.RAJA BALBHADRA SINGHV.THE STATE O\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/02\/1954\n\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nHASAN, GHULAM\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  259\t\t  1954 SCR  748\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1955 SC 817\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\n   Constitution\t of  India, art. 385--Madhya Bharat Abolition\n of  Jagirs  Act  (XXVIII of  1951)--Whether   void   as  not\n passed by a validly constituted legislature.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  The\tdecision  of  the   Madhya  Bharat    High    Court\ndeclaring\nsection\t 4  (1) (g) and\t sub-cls. (iv) and (v) of cl.  4  of\nSchedule  I of Madhya Bharat  Abolition\t of\tJagirs\t Act\n(XXVIII\t of  1951)  as illegal and  inoperative\t  was\t not\nquestioned by either  of  the parties.\n   It  was  however,  contended\t that  the  impugned\tAct\n(XXVIII\t of  1951)   was void as it was not   passed   by  a\nvalidly\t constituted legislature within\t the meaning of\t the\ncovenant  entered into by the  Rulers  of Madhya Bharat\t  as\nthe  provisions of cl. 1(c) of Schedule IV  of the  covenant\nfor the election of 20 members were not complied with.\n   Held,  that as the Madhya Bharat  Legislative   Assembly\nactually functioning on the 26th January, 1950, the validity\nof the Acts  passed by it  could not  be  questioned in view\nof  art. 385 of the  Constitution irrespective\tof the\tfact\nwhether\t it  had  been proPerly\t constituted  in  accordance\nwith  the  terms  of the covenant or not\nScope of articles 379, 382 and 385 discussed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL\t APPELLATE   JURISDICTION:   Civil  Appeals  Nos.  4<br \/>\nand 6 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Appeals   under article  132(1)  of the Constitution  of<br \/>\nIndia  from the judgment and Order dated the  4th  December,<br \/>\n1952, of the High Court of Judicature of the State of Madhya<br \/>\nBharat\tat Gwalior in Civil Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 614  of<br \/>\n1951 and 1 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n<p>    P.R.  Das (B. Sen, with him)  for the appellant in\tC.A.<br \/>\nNo. 4 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">749<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    Rameshwar Nath for the  appellant in C.A. No. 6 of 1953.<br \/>\n    M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General  for  India,  and K.  A.<br \/>\nChitale,  Advocate-General  of\tMadhya\tBharat (Shiv  Dayal,<br \/>\nwith them)  for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>    1954.  February  2.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was<br \/>\ndelivered by<br \/>\nMAHAJAN C.J.&#8211;These appeals preferred on behalf\t   of  three<br \/>\nzamindars  of\tthe   State of\tMadhya\tBharat\tagainst\t the<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court of Judicature of that State dated<br \/>\nthe   4th  December,  1952,  raise  common    constitutional<br \/>\nquestions   and\t can be\t disposed  of by one judgment.\t The<br \/>\nState  also  preferred cross appeals\tagainst\t  the\tsame<br \/>\njudgment.    During   the pendency  of these  appeals,\t two<br \/>\npetitions  under  article 32  of the Constitution  of  India<br \/>\nwere also made\tto this court to obtain\t the same  relief as<br \/>\nwas   claimed  by   the\t  appellants  in  their\t  respective<br \/>\nappeals.  During  the course of the arguments,\tthe  counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for the appellant  in Civil Appeal No. 5 of\t1953<br \/>\nasked  leave to withdraw   the appeal.\tThis   was   granted<br \/>\nand  the  appeal was   dismissed as having  been  withdrawn.<br \/>\nPetitioner.  Nos.  116\t and 117  of 1953   preferred  under<br \/>\narticle\t 3  were  also\t withdrawn  and\t were\t accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.  Civil Appeals Nos. 4 and 6 of 1953\twere  argued<br \/>\nbefore us and this  judgment   concerns\t them alone.<br \/>\n    The\t appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1953,   Rajendra<br \/>\nMaloji\tRao Shitole, is the proprietor of  extensive  landed<br \/>\nproperties  in\tthe  State of Madhya Bharat  comprising\t 260<br \/>\nvillages under\tdifferent Sanads granted to his ancestors by<br \/>\nthe  Rulers of Gwalior from time to time. It was alleged  by<br \/>\nhim that his income from these\tproperties was in  the\t sum<br \/>\nof  Rs.\t 2,61,637 and that the\tState  of   Madhya   Bharat,<br \/>\nunder  purported exercise of its powers under section  3  of<br \/>\nthe  Madhya Bharat  Abolition of Jagirs\t Act,  was about  to<br \/>\nissue  a Notification for resumption of all his land.  By  a<br \/>\npetition dated the  7th\t December, 1951,  preferred  to\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  he asked for a mandamus to restrain  the  State<br \/>\nfrom  issuing  any Notification under  section 3(1) of\t the<br \/>\nAct  in\t respect  of  his properties  and  from<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">750<\/span><br \/>\ninterfering with rights in the said property. The  appellant<br \/>\nin  Civil  Appeal No. 6 of 1953 is another Jagirdar  of\t the<br \/>\nsame  State.  He preferred a similar petition  to  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  praying\tfor the same relief.  These  two  petitions,<br \/>\nalong  with a number of other  petitions   preferred   under<br \/>\narticle\t 226  of the Constitution  challenging the  validity<br \/>\nof the\tMadhya Bharat Abolition\t of Jagirs  Act\t and praying<br \/>\nfor  the  issue of a mandamus restraining  the\tState\tfrom<br \/>\nissuing\t  the  Notification under section 3(1)\tof the\tsaid<br \/>\nAct,  were  heard by a Bench of three  Judges  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of  Madhya  Bharat.   The  ,court,   by\ta   majority<br \/>\njudgment,  declared that  the  Madhya  Bharat  Abolition  of<br \/>\nJagirs\tAct  No.  XXVIII of  1951  was\t valid\t except\t  as<br \/>\nregards\t  section 4(1)(g) and  sub-clauses (iv) and  (v)  of<br \/>\nclause\t4  of  Schedule\t  I  which  were  held\tillegal\t and<br \/>\ninoperative.   A writ of mandamus was directed to be  issued<br \/>\nto  the State Government directing it not to give effect  to<br \/>\nthe  procisions\t of the\t impugned  Act stated above.   Leave<br \/>\nto  appeal  to the Supreme Court was granted to\t the  paries<br \/>\nand  in\t pursuance  of\tthe  leave the\tappellants  referred<br \/>\nthe appeal above mentioned and\tthe State referred  the\t two<br \/>\ncross  appeals.\t The  cross  appeals were not pressed by the<br \/>\nlearned\t Attorney-General and nothing  more need   be\tsaid<br \/>\nabout  them.  They  are therefore dismissed with costs.<br \/>\n    As\tregards\t Civil Appeals . Nos. 4 and 6 of  1953,\t the<br \/>\nfacts  are:  That in April, 1948, after\t the   partition  of<br \/>\nIndia,\tand  the  formation  of\t two  Dominions,  India\t and<br \/>\nPakistan,   the\t Rulers\t of the States\tof  Gwalior,  Indore<br \/>\nand   certain\tother  States\tin   Central   India   being<br \/>\nconvinced  that\t the welfare of the people  of\tthat  region<br \/>\ncould best be  secured by the establishment of a State<br \/>\ncomprising   the     territories   of&#8217;\ttheir\t  respective<br \/>\nStates\twith  a\t common\t      Executive,   Legislature\t and<br \/>\nJudiciary   entered    into    an    agreement\t  for\t the<br \/>\nformation  of a United State of Gwalior,  Indore  and  Malwa<br \/>\n(Madhya Bharat).  It was  resolved by them  to entrust to  a<br \/>\nConstituent\t Assembly      consisting     of     elected<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t  of  the   people  the\t drawing  up  of   a<br \/>\ndemocratic  Constitution for the State within the  framework<br \/>\nof the Constitution of\tIndia to which the  Rulers  of these<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">751<\/span><br \/>\nStates\thad  acceded. The  covenant entered  into  by  these<br \/>\nRulers\twas published on the 7th October, 1948.\t The  Rulers<br \/>\nagreed,\t under\tarticle\t III  of the covenant,\tto  elect  a<br \/>\nRajpramukh  of\tthe United State, and by  article   VI\t the<br \/>\nRuler\tof   each  Covenanting\t State agreed to  make\tover<br \/>\nthe administration of the State to the\tRajpramukh not later<br \/>\nthan  the  first day of July, 1948, and it was\tagreed\tthat<br \/>\nthereupon   all\t  rights,   authority\t and\tjurisdiction<br \/>\nbelonging to  the  Ruler which appertain, or are  incidental<br \/>\nto,  the Government of the Covenanting States shall vest  in<br \/>\nthe  United  State  and were thereafter\t to  be\t exercisable<br \/>\nonly  as provided by the covenant or by the Constitution  to<br \/>\nbe  framed  thereunder.\t By  article  X it was\tagreed\tthat<br \/>\nas  soon  as  practicable a Constituent\t Assembly,  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of  framing  a Constitution for  the  United  State<br \/>\nwithin the framework  of the  covenant and the\tConstitution<br \/>\nof  India,   was to be formed and  clause (2)  of  the\tsaid<br \/>\narticle provided:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;The   Rajpramukh  shall constitute not later  than\t the<br \/>\nfirst  day of August, 1948, an interim Legislative  Assembly<br \/>\nfor  the  United State in the manner indicated\tin  Schedule<br \/>\nIV.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    Schedule   IV laid down the following procedure for\t the<br \/>\nconstitution of the Legislative Assembly:<br \/>\n&#8220;1. The Legislative Assembly shall consist of&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (a)  forty\t members  elected  by  the members   of\t the<br \/>\nGwalior Legislative Assembly;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t fifteen   members  elected by the  members  of\t the<br \/>\nIndore Legislative Assembly; and\n<\/p>\n<p>    (c)\t twenty members elected\t by  an\t  electoral  college<br \/>\nto  be\tconstituted by the Rajpramukh in  consultation\twith<br \/>\nthe   Government of  India  to represent Covenanting  States<br \/>\nother than Gwalior and Indore.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2. The election shall be by proportional  representation<br \/>\nby means of the single transferable vote.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.\tThe  Rajpramukh\t may make rules\t for  carrying\tinto<br \/>\neffect\t the   foregoing  provisions of\t this  Schedule\t and<br \/>\nsecuring   the due constitution of the interim\t Legislative<br \/>\nAssembly.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">752<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    In\tpursuance  of this covenant the Rajpramukh took\t the<br \/>\noath  of office on the 28th  of May,  1948.  In the meantime<br \/>\n40  members representing the  Indore  group were elected  to<br \/>\nthe  interim  legislative-assembly on the 8th  and  9th\t  of<br \/>\nMay,   1948,  respectively.  As\t regards the election of  20<br \/>\nmembers\t that had to be elected\t by an\telectoral   college,<br \/>\nwhat\thappened   was\t this.\t The  Ministry\tof   States,<br \/>\nGovernment  of India, on the 5th July,\t1948,  informed\t the<br \/>\nRajpramukh  that there were many practical  difficulties  in<br \/>\nsetting\t  up an\t electoral college  consisting\tof   elected<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t of  the various  States,  because  in\tmany<br \/>\nof  the smaller States there were no elected bodies  of\t any<br \/>\nkind.  After  considering the various  difficulties  it\t was<br \/>\nsuggested   to the Rajpramukh that the twenty seats  may  be<br \/>\nallocated between the different States in  a certain  manner<br \/>\nmentioned in the latter\t and out of these,  fourteen  may be<br \/>\nallotted   to  the nominees  of the  Praja  Mandal  and\t the<br \/>\nremaining  six may be nominated by the\tRajpramukh  himself.<br \/>\nThis  suggestion  was modified\tby a letter  of the 19th  of<br \/>\nNovember,  1948,  and it was finally agreed upon  that\t the<br \/>\nMadhya\t Bharat\t  Provincial  Congress Committee    may\t  be<br \/>\nasked\tto   elect  six persons &#8216;to represent  the   smaller<br \/>\nStates\tin the\tMadhya\tBharat interim legislative assembly.<br \/>\nThis  suggestion was not exactly  in accord  with what\t had<br \/>\nbeen  indicated\t in clause  1 (c)  of  Schedule\t IV.   These<br \/>\nrepresentatives were elected in the manner suggested in\t the<br \/>\ntwo  letters,  on the 19th  October, 1948,   and  they\twere<br \/>\ndeclared to be validly elected in terms of the covenant.<br \/>\n    On the 30th of October, 1948, the Rajpramukh promulgated<br \/>\nan    Ordinance\t   entitled    &#8220;The    Interim\t Legislative<br \/>\nAssembly     Ordinance\t Samvat\t   2005&#8221;, Ordinance  No.  18<br \/>\nof   1948.   In\t  the  preamble\t to  the  Ordinance  it\t was<br \/>\ndeclared  that\tin accordance with the provisions   of\t the<br \/>\ncovenant   the\tlegislative  assembly had    already\tbeen<br \/>\nduly constituted.   The\t various sections  of the  Ordinance<br \/>\nprovided   for\tthe  working of\t the   interim\t legislative<br \/>\nassembly,  i.e., the  manner in which it could be   summoned<br \/>\nand  dissolved\tor  prorogued, how its President and  Deputy<br \/>\nPresident  were to be elected and how it  was  to   exercise<br \/>\nthe  power  of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">753<\/span><br \/>\nvoting\t and  what number of members  would  constitute\t the<br \/>\nquorum.\t  On\tthe   6th    of\t December,\t1948,\t the<br \/>\nOrdinance  was\trepealed  and  Act  XXIII of\t  1949\ttook<br \/>\nits  place.  The  legislative\tassembly  thus\t constituted<br \/>\nwas  actually\tfunctioning on the 26th\t of  January,  1950,<br \/>\nwhen  the  Constitution of India: came into force.   In\t the<br \/>\nmeantime,   by\tsubsequent  covenants,\tthe  Rulers  of\t the<br \/>\nCovenanting  States  had agreed to accept  the\tConstitution<br \/>\nof  India as the Constitution of the United State of  Madhya<br \/>\nBharat\t and  had abandoned  their  covenant  of  forming  a<br \/>\nseparate   Constituent Assembly for framing  a\tConstitution<br \/>\nfor    the   United   State   of   Madhya   Bharat.    After<br \/>\nthe coming into force  of  the\tConstitution  of  India\t the<br \/>\ninterim\t    legislative\t   assembly  constituted   by\t the<br \/>\nRajpramukh   and   which  was functioning on  the  26th\t  of<br \/>\nJanuary,   1950,  continued to function till  some  time  in<br \/>\nthe  year   1952   when new elections  took   place   and  a<br \/>\nlegislative  assembly\tin conformity with the provisions of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India was duly constituted.<br \/>\n    On\tthe  30th of November, 1949, the Government  of\t the<br \/>\nState  of  Madhya  Bharat introduced a\tBill   entitled\t the<br \/>\n&#8220;Madhya\t Bharat\t  Abolition  of\t Jagirs\t Bill&#8217;\t before\t the<br \/>\ninterim\t  legislative  assembly\t and  the  Bill\t was  passed<br \/>\ninto  an Act on the 28th of August, 1951, and  having\tbeen<br \/>\nreserved     for   the\t consideration\t of   the  President<br \/>\nreceived   his\tassent\ton the 27th November, 1951.  It\t was<br \/>\npublished    in the Madhya Bharat Gazette  Extraordinary  on<br \/>\nthe  7th  of December,\t1951. The said Act,  by\t section  3,<br \/>\nprovided  for  a date to-be appointed by the  Government  by<br \/>\nnotification for resumption of all jagir lands in the- State<br \/>\nand by section 4 it provided that as from  such a date,\t the<br \/>\nright,\ttitle  and interest of every jagirdar  and of  every<br \/>\nother  person\tclaiming  through him  in  his\tjagir  lands<br \/>\nincluding forests, trees, fisheries,  wells,  tanks,  ponds,<br \/>\nwater-channels,\t  ferries,  pathways,  village-sites,  huts,<br \/>\nbazaars\t and  mela grounds and mines and  minerals   whether<br \/>\nbeing  worked  or not, &#8216;shall stand resumed  to\t the   State<br \/>\nfree  from  all encumbrances.  The Act\t also\tprovided   a<br \/>\nscheme\tfor  assessment of compensation\t    m\trespect\t  of<br \/>\njagirs\tthus resumed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">754<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      The appellants contested the validity of this law on a<br \/>\nnumber of grounds,     and,  inter  alia,  on  the following<br \/>\n:&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>  (1)  That  the   so-called  legislature which\t passed\t the<br \/>\nAct  was  not  a  legislature  within  the  meaning  of\t the<br \/>\ncovenant  entered   into by  the Rulers of  Gwalior,  Indore<br \/>\nand   certain\tother\tStates\tin  Central  India  for\t the<br \/>\nformation   of\tthe United  State of  Gwalior,\t Indore\t and<br \/>\nMalwa  (Madhya Bharat) or_within the meaning of Schedule  IV<br \/>\nof  the\t said  covenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (2)  That  the  legislature  of  Madhya  Bharat  was,\t not<br \/>\ncompetent  to  enact  the  said Act and the said acquisition<br \/>\nor  resumption of jagirs was not for a public.\tpurpose\t and<br \/>\nthere  was  no\tprovision for  payment\tof  compensation  as<br \/>\nunderstood  in\tlaw,  the compensation\tprovided  for  being<br \/>\nwholly\t illusory    and  the  Act  was\t a  fraud   on\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Before  the\t High Court, Mr. P.R. Das who  appeared\t for<br \/>\nmost  of the petitioners,  confined his arguments  some\t  of<br \/>\nthe   grounds\tmentioned   in clause  (2)above.  His  first<br \/>\ncontention that the impugned Act was passed by a legislature<br \/>\nnot  validly  constituted,  he\treserved for arguing  before<br \/>\nthis   court  as  the  Madhya Bharat High Court\t by  a\tFull<br \/>\nBench  decision\t in Shree Ram Dubey v. The State  of  Madhya<br \/>\nBharat(1),  had already repelled  that contention. The\t two<br \/>\npoints argued  by him before the High Court were:\n<\/p>\n<p>    (1)\t That\tthere  was no public   purpose\t behind\t the<br \/>\nacquisition   for   the\t resumption  of\t jagir\t lands\t and<br \/>\ntherefore the Act was unconstitutional and illegal.<br \/>\n    (2) That some of the provisions of the impugned Act were<br \/>\nultra  vires  in so far as they constituted a fraud  on\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\tBoth   these\tpoints\t which,\t were  urged<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  High  Court were not argued before\t us  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel.  The\tpoint  that  there  was\t  no  public<br \/>\npurpose\t behind\t the  acquisition  was abandoned because  it<br \/>\nwas  concluded by the decision of this court in\t the  Orissa<br \/>\nZamindari  appeals, K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and Others  v.<br \/>\nThe State of Orissa(2).\n<\/p>\n<p>A.I.R. 1952 M.B. 57-178.\n<\/p>\n<p>A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 375; [1954] S.C.R. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">755<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As  regards   the  second  point,  as\talready\t  indicated,<br \/>\nthree provisions of the impugned Act had been declared\tvoid<br \/>\nby  the\t High\tCourt  and  Mr.\t Das  contented\t himself  by<br \/>\naccepting    that  decision.   The  &#8216;State  Government\t had<br \/>\nimpugned  the correctness of the decision of the High  Court<br \/>\ndeclaring  these three\tprovisions of the Act to be void but<br \/>\nit  also  did not press that point. The\t result\t  of   these<br \/>\nconcessions   in  this\tcourt is that the arguments  in\t the<br \/>\ntwo appeals were limited to the first point  urged  in\t the<br \/>\npetition,  namely,   whether  the impugned Act was passed by<br \/>\na  Legislature not validly constituted\tunder the   covenant<br \/>\nentered into by\t the Rulers of Madhya Bharat.<br \/>\n    Mr.\t P.R. Das contended that as the Interim\t Legislative<br \/>\nAssembly   was not constituted according to  the  provisions<br \/>\nof  Schedule IV of the covenant it was a body\tof  usurpers<br \/>\nand  therefore\tany laws made by it were wholly void and  of<br \/>\nno  effect whatsoever.\tIt was urged  that the\ttwo  bodies,<br \/>\nviz.  Praja Mandal and the Provincial\tCongress   Committee<br \/>\nwho,  in  two  separate divisions, elected  fourteen and six<br \/>\nmembers, did not constitute&#8217; an electoral  college to fulfil<br \/>\nthe  requirement  of clause 1 (c) of Schedule  IV,  and\t the<br \/>\nmembers\t elected could not be  said to have been elected  in<br \/>\nthe  manner  prescribed\t  by the  Schedule   and  that\t the<br \/>\nRajpramukh and the Government of India, in the absence of an<br \/>\namending  covenant,  had no power  to vary the provisions of<br \/>\nthe  Schedule.\tIt  was said that the  object  of clause   1\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  of\t Schedule  IV was  that the election of\t 20  members<br \/>\nshould\tbe  by\tan  electoral  college\tconstituted  by\t the<br \/>\nRajpramukh in consultation with the Government\tof India  to<br \/>\nrepresent   the\t Covenanting  States other than Gwalior\t and<br \/>\nIndore\tand  that the election by the Praja Mandal  and\t the<br \/>\nCongress  Committee of 14 and 6 members was in clear  breach<br \/>\nof  the\t terms of the covenant and that in  this  manner  no<br \/>\nrepresentation\twas given to the minorities and full  effect<br \/>\nwas  not given to the rule that the election  should  be  by<br \/>\nproportional representation by means of single\ttransferable<br \/>\nvote. The learned Attorney-General met these contentions  by<br \/>\nurging,\t (1) that the question\twas not open  having  regard<br \/>\nto the provisions   of article 385 of  the Constitution\t  of<br \/>\nIndia<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">756<\/span><br \/>\n(2)  that  the\telection  of  20  members  representing\t the<br \/>\neighteen  States  took place in literal\t compliance  of\t the<br \/>\ncovenant,   (3)\t that in any event  there  was\t substantial<br \/>\ncompliance  with  the  covenant, and  lastly  (4)  that\t the<br \/>\ndeclarations made in the  Ordinance  by\t the  Rajpramukh and<br \/>\nthe  provisions contained in the Ordinance were\t  conclusive<br \/>\nand were accepted  by all the States  concerned and could no<br \/>\nlonger be challenged.\n<\/p>\n<p>    After   a  careful\tconsideration  of   the\t  respective<br \/>\narguments   addressed  by  Mr.\tP.R. Das  and\tthe  learned<br \/>\nAttorney-General   we have  reached  the conclusion that  it<br \/>\nis  not\t necessary to consider\tin  detail all\t the  points<br \/>\ndiscussed  by  the learned counsel, as in our  judgment\t the<br \/>\nquestion seems to be concluded by the provisions of  article<br \/>\n385 of the Constitution of India. There is no gainsaying the<br \/>\nfact  that the election of 20 members to   represent the  18<br \/>\nStates\twas not made strictly in the\tmanner indicated  in<br \/>\nSchedule  IV  of  the covenant,\t but\tit  also  cannot  be<br \/>\ndisputed,   and in fact was not disputed  before  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt,\t that\tthe  Legislative Assembly which\t passed\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  Act was on the 26th of January, 1950, in spite  of<br \/>\nits  defective\tconstitution,  in fact\tfunctioning as\t the<br \/>\nLegislature  of the State  of  Madhya  Bharat. It had\tbeen<br \/>\ndeclared  to  have   come  into\t existence by  an  Ordinance<br \/>\npromulgated  by the  Rajpramukh and its factual existence is<br \/>\napparent  from\tthe  laws that it  made\t subsequent  to\t its<br \/>\nformation.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Part  XXI  of  the\tConstitution  of  India\t deals\twith<br \/>\n&#8220;Temporary   and Transitional Provisions&#8221;. About  two  dozen<br \/>\narticles  in this Part concern themselves with the  solution<br \/>\nof the problems of their interval in between the repeal\t  of<br \/>\nthe  Government\t of India Act and the coming into  being  of<br \/>\nbodies\tand authorities formed by the  Constitution.   Until<br \/>\nthe   House   or   Houses  of  Legislature  or\tbodies\t and<br \/>\nauthorities formed by  the Constitution could be duly formed<br \/>\nit was necessary to say with  certain  definiteness  as\t  to<br \/>\nwhat  bodies  or authorities  would  exercise  and   perform<br \/>\nthe   duties  conferred by the different provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution   in the  meantime.  When a  silent  revolution<br \/>\nwas taking  place   and\t  Princely   kingdoms\twere  fast<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">757<\/span><br \/>\ndisappearing  and a new democratic  Constitution  was  being<br \/>\nset  up\t and  a provision had to be made  for  the  interval<br \/>\nbetween\t   the\t switch-over   from  one   Constitution\t  to<br \/>\nanother,   there  was\thardly\t any  time  to\tenquire\t and<br \/>\nconsider  whether  the bodies or authorities   or  House  or<br \/>\nHouses\tof  Legislature formed under the  old  Constitutions<br \/>\nwhich  were  being  scrapped   had  been  formed  in  strict<br \/>\ncompliance  with the provisions of those  Constitutions\t  or<br \/>\nwhether\t there\twere  any  defects in their formation.\t The<br \/>\nConstitution-makers    therefore   took notice\t of    their<br \/>\nfactual\t  existence  and gave them  recognition\t  under\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  and  invested  the bodies that  were  actually<br \/>\nfunctioning  as\t such, whether\tregularly   or\tirregularly,<br \/>\nwith  the  authority to exercise the powers  and perform the<br \/>\nduties\t   conferred\tby    the   provisions\t  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\tThat   is  clearly  the scheme\tof  all\t the<br \/>\narticles  mentioned  in\t Part  XXI  of\tthe    Constitution.<br \/>\nParticular  reference  may  be made to articles 379, 382 and<br \/>\nto article 385 which specifically governs the present  case.<br \/>\nArticle 379 is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;(1)  Until both Houses of Parliament  have\t  been\tduly<br \/>\nconstituted and summoned to meet for the first session under<br \/>\nthe    provisions    of\t this\t Constitution,\t  the\tbody<br \/>\nfunctioning as\tthe  Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of<br \/>\nIndia\timmediately  before  the  commencement\t  of\tthis<br \/>\nConstitution   shall   be  the\tprovisional  Parliament\t and<br \/>\nshall  exercise\t all the powers and perform all\t the  duties<br \/>\nconferred   by\tthe  provisions\t of  this  Constitution\t  on<br \/>\nParliament.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Explanation.&#8211;For\t  the  purposes\t of   this   clause.<br \/>\nthe   Constituent   Assembly  of  the  Dominion\t  of   India<br \/>\nincludes&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)  the  members  chosen to represent any  State  or  other<br \/>\nterritory   for\t which\trepresentation\tis   provided  under<br \/>\nclause (2), and\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) the members chosen to fill casual vacancies in the said<br \/>\nAssembly.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  provision made in this article in\t  unambiguous  terms<br \/>\nmakes\t the   body.  functioning   as\t  the\t Constituent<br \/>\nAssembly,  whether   constituted   perfectly   or<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">758<\/span><br \/>\nimperfectly   and  whatever  its  membership   on  the\tdate<br \/>\nimmediately before the commencement of the Constitution,  as<br \/>\nthe   provisional   Parliament and  vests it  with  all\t the<br \/>\nfunctions   and duties\tconferred  by  the   provisions\t  of<br \/>\nthe   Constitution   on the  Parliament. The  President\t was<br \/>\ngiven  power  under the provisions of this  article  to\t add<br \/>\nmembers\t  to  this body to give\t representation\t to  certain<br \/>\nStates\twho  were  not\t previously represented, and it\t was<br \/>\nspecifically  prescribed that\tif there are  any  vacancies<br \/>\nthen the vacancies   could  be filled  up  and\tthe  members<br \/>\nreturned   to  fill  these vacancies  will   be\t  considered<br \/>\nmembers\t of   the  provisional\tParliament.  These  specific<br \/>\nprovisions   are  indicative   of   the\t  fact\t that\t the<br \/>\nConstitution-makers,   in  enacting   this   article,\ttook<br \/>\nnotice\tof the factual\texistence of certain bodies  without<br \/>\nconcerning  themselves\twith  the  question   whether\tthey<br \/>\nhad   been  validly constituted under the Constitution\tthat<br \/>\nbrought them into being. Article 382 of the  Constitution is<br \/>\nsimilarly worded. It provides that until the House or Houses<br \/>\nof  the Legislature  of each State  specified in Part  A  of<br \/>\nthe  First  Schedule  has or have been duly constituted\t and<br \/>\nsummoned to meet for the first session under the  provisions<br \/>\nof  this   Constitution,   the\tHouse  or   Houses  of\t the<br \/>\nLegislature   of  the\tcorresponding  Province\t functioning<br \/>\nimmediately   before the  commencement of this\tConstitution<br \/>\nshall exercise the powers and perform the duties   conferred<br \/>\nby  the provisions  of\tthis  Constitution on the  House  or<br \/>\nHouses\tof the Legislature of such State. Article 385 is  in<br \/>\nexact conformity with the two earlier articles.\t It provides<br \/>\nthat-\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Until  the  House or Houses of the  Legislature  of  a<br \/>\nState specified in Part B of the First Schedule has or\thave<br \/>\nbeen  duly  constituted and summoned to meet for  the  first<br \/>\nsession under the provisions of this Constitution, the\tbody<br \/>\nor authority functioning immediately before the commencement<br \/>\nof   this   Constitution  as  the   Legislature\t   of\t the<br \/>\ncorresponding  Indian  State  shall exercise the powers\t and<br \/>\nperform\t the  duties  conferred by the\tprovisions  of\tthis<br \/>\nConstitution  on the House or Houses of the  Legislature  of<br \/>\nthe State so specified.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">759<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      The whole intent and purpose of these articles was  to<br \/>\ngive   recognition   to\t those\tbodies\tor  authorities\t  or<br \/>\nHouse\tor   Houses   of Legislature   which  were  actually<br \/>\nfunctioning  before  the  26th of January,  1950,   and\t  to<br \/>\ninvest them with the powers conferred by the provisions\t  of<br \/>\nthis   Constitution.\tThe  Constitution-makers  wanted  to<br \/>\nindicate  the  arrangements  made  by  them for the interval<br \/>\nwith  certain amount of definiteness in order to  avoid\t any<br \/>\ndisputes  during  the interim period as to who the  body  or<br \/>\nauthority  was,\t to  exercise the powers  conferred  by\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tthe Constitution. They therefore  chose\t the<br \/>\nformula that whichever body or authority or House or  Houses<br \/>\nof   Legislature  was  actually\t  functioning\t immediately<br \/>\nbefore\tthe   commencement of the Constitution would be\t the<br \/>\nbody  or  authority or the House that  would  exercise\t the<br \/>\npowers and perform  the duties\tconferred by the  provisions<br \/>\nof  this  Constitution\ton  the\t House,\t body or   authority<br \/>\nspecified   in the  Constitution.  They did  not  take\t any<br \/>\nrisk  on this  question and the bodies actually\t functioning<br \/>\nwere,\tlike  persona  designata,   invested  with    powers<br \/>\nconferred by the Constitution. That being the scheme of this<br \/>\nPart and that being also the clear and unambiguous  language<br \/>\nof article 385\tit follows that the Madhya  Bharat . Interim<br \/>\nLegislative   Assembly\tthat was  actually  functioning\t  on<br \/>\nthe  26h  January, 1950, was invested by the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia  with  powers   conferred by the\tprovisions   of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution,\tirrespective   of   the\t  fact\t whether  it<br \/>\nhad   been   properly\tconstituted   in   accordance\twith<br \/>\nthe   terms  of\t the covenant or not. The inquiry into\tthis<br \/>\nquestion thus became  barred  by adopting  this\t  procedure.<br \/>\nSuch  a\t procedure  was fully  justified   and\twas  rounded<br \/>\nupon   considerations  of  policy  and\tnecessity  for,\t the<br \/>\nprotection  of the public  and individuals  whose  interests<br \/>\nmay  be\t affected  thereby.  It\t is  manifest  that  endless<br \/>\nconfusion  would have resulted if the Constitution  had\t not<br \/>\nadopted that formula and had not barred an inquiry into\t all<br \/>\nquestions  as to the original  formation of such bodies\t  by<br \/>\ngiving\tvalidity  and\trecognition   to   those  bodies  or<br \/>\nauthorities  as were actually functioning on the   26th\t  of<br \/>\nJanuary,  1950.\t Not only  did it  give<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">760<\/span><br \/>\nvalidity and recognition to those bodies which were in\tfact<br \/>\nfunctioning.  then  but it also\t invested  these  designated<br \/>\nbodies\t and  authorities   with powers\t  conferred  by\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of the Constitution itself. That being our\tview<br \/>\nas to the true meaning and &#8216;intent of the language  employed<br \/>\nin  article  385  of the Constitution it  follows  that\t the<br \/>\ncontention  raised  by\tMr. P.R. Das  as  to  the  defective<br \/>\nformation  of the Interim Legislative  Assembly\t of   Madhya<br \/>\nBharat\thas  no\t validity. Even if that body was not  formed<br \/>\nin  strict compliance with  the\t provisions   indicated\t  in<br \/>\nSchedule  IV of the covenant its  defective formation\tdoes<br \/>\nnot   affect  the constitutionality    of    the    impugned<br \/>\nstatute.   The impugned statute was passed in the year\t1951<br \/>\nafter  the Constitution of India had given  recognition\t to,<br \/>\nand  conferred powers on, the Assembly under article 385  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution.  When it made this law it was  exercising<br \/>\nits powers under the Constitution of India and not under the<br \/>\ncovenant  which\t brought it into existence.    The    result<br \/>\ntherefore  is  that  the  only contention that Mr. P.R.\t Das<br \/>\nargued\tbefore\tus cannot be sustained and it must  be\theld<br \/>\nthat it is not well founded.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For the reasons given above we see no force in these two<br \/>\nappeals\t and   they  are  therefore  dismissed\twith costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t    Appeals   dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> Agent for the\tappellant in C.A. No. 4: 1. N. Shroff.<br \/>\nAgent for the appellant in C.A. No. 6 :Rajinder Narain.<br \/>\nAgent for the respondent: R.H.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">761<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja &#8230; on 2 February, 1954 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 259, 1954 SCR 748 Author: M C Mahajan Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam PETITIONER: RAJ RAJENDRA MALOJIRAO SHITOLE Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja ... on 2 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja ... on 2 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1954-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-10T20:48:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja &#8230; on 2 February, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T20:48:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954\"},\"wordCount\":4080,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954\",\"name\":\"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja ... on 2 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T20:48:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja &#8230; on 2 February, 1954\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja ... on 2 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja ... on 2 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-10T20:48:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja &#8230; on 2 February, 1954","datePublished":"1954-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T20:48:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954"},"wordCount":4080,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954","name":"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja ... on 2 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T20:48:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajendra-malojirao-shitole-vs-the-state-of-madhya-bharat-raja-on-2-february-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj Rajendra Malojirao Shitole vs The State Of Madhya Bharat.Raja &#8230; on 2 February, 1954"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161168\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}