Recognised pre-existing grants survive succession only if continued by the new sovereign; executive action cannot override preserved rights.

After sovereignty passed to a successor State, maintenance and Khorposh rights under the former regime were enforceable in municipal courts only if the new sovereign had recognised or continued them, expressly or by necessary implication. The Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947 was read as preserving existing laws under section 4, and section 5 could not be used to override or extinguish rights kept alive by that scheme. Applying these principles, the Talcher allowances and the recognised Bamra and Kalahandi grants were protected from withdrawal by mere executive action, while the Bamra grant that had been validly annulled under the Act was not enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners' maintenance or Khorposh grants created rights enforceable against the successor sovereign only if recognised or continued by it; (ii) whether the general powers under the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947 authorised the authorities to extinguish or abrogate grants and whether section 5 could override continued laws; (iii) whether the grants in the Talcher, Bamra and Kalahandi matters had in fact been recognised by the successor Government so as to be enforceable, and whether later executive steps could validly terminate the recognised allowances.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners' maintenance or Khorposh grants created rights enforceable against the successor sovereign only if recognised or continued by it.

Analysis: On the merger of the former States, pre-existing rights under the old regime did not automatically become enforceable against the new sovereign. The municipal courts could enforce only such rights as the new sovereign had recognised, expressly or by necessary implication, through legislation, agreement, or course of dealing. The burden lay on the claimant to establish such recognition. The doctrine of act of State and the law governing acquisition of territory showed that rights under the former ruler, by themselves, were not enough.

Conclusion: The rights asserted against the successor sovereign were enforceable only to the extent that they had been recognised or accepted by the new sovereign.

Issue (ii): whether the general powers under the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947 authorised the authorities to extinguish or abrogate grants and whether section 5 could override continued laws.

Analysis: The Act had to be read as a whole. Section 4 and orders made under it continued existing laws and preserved them until altered by a competent authority. Section 5 validated acts done in pursuance of jurisdiction, but did not authorise the authorities to nullify laws kept alive by section 4. The general language of section 3 could not be used to defeat the specific scheme of section 4. A valid order under section 4 could abrogate or modify rights only where the grant had not already been continued or recognised by the applicable law.

Conclusion: Section 5 did not empower the authorities to override laws continued under section 4, and a grant could not be extinguished merely by invoking the general power of administration.

Issue (iii): whether the grants in the Talcher, Bamra and Kalahandi matters had in fact been recognised by the successor Government so as to be enforceable, and whether later executive steps could validly terminate the recognised allowances.

Analysis: In the Talcher matter, the applicable order continued the former State laws, including the regulations governing Khorposh, and thereby recognised the customary grant; the later stopping of payment was not supported by any valid power to displace that recognised right. In the Bamra matter, the grant in the second petition had been annulled by a valid order under the Act, so the right could not be enforced, but in the companion Bamra petition and in the Kalahandi matters the allowances had been recognised and acted upon for years, and could not be withdrawn by a mere administrative fiat or political statement.

Conclusion: The Talcher petition and the petitions in which the allowances had been recognised and implemented succeeded, while the petition in which the grant had been validly annulled failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld enforceable maintenance rights only where the successor Government had recognised them, sustained the validity of a statutory annulment in one case, and granted relief in the cases where recognised allowances were withdrawn without lawful authority.

Ratio Decidendi: After sovereignty passes to a new State, pre-existing rights are enforceable in municipal courts only to the extent that the new sovereign has recognised them, and a general administrative power cannot abrogate rights preserved by a specific statutory scheme continuing the old law.

---