Bakhu Mal vs State

This is an appeal from an order of the Governor Jammu rejecting Bakhu Mal's application for a certificate to declare that he is a hereditary

Statesubject of Class I. His claim was that he had settled in the State before the commencement of Sambat year 1942 and has cancel been

residing therein. The Governor granted this contention but held that only a person who has acquired immovable property in the State can become a

Statesubject of Class I. We are knot in agreement with this opinion. We have ready the Judicial Department Notification dated 20th April 1927

and we need quote only the definition of the first two classes of State subjects. It declares:

The term ""Statesubject"" means and includes:

Class I All persons born and residing within the State before the commencement of the reign of His Highness the late Maharaja Gulab Singh Sahib

Bahadur, and also persons who settled therein before the commencement of Samvat year 1942, and have since been permanently residing therein.

Class II All persons other than those belonging to Class I who settled within the State before the close of Samvat year 1965, and have since

permanently resided and acquired immovable property therein.

The distinction between the two classes is clearly emphasizes in the definition. There is no condition as to acquisition of immovable property laid

down for a Statesubject of Class I but it is laid down for a Statesubject of Class II. If it had been desired by the Government that only those

persons who possessed immovable property could be Statesubjects of Class I, it would have been definitely mentioned in the definition of

Statesubject"" of Class I just as it has been mentioned kin the definition of Statesubject of Class II. There is a reason for it because all the large

population without possession of property as well as a large number of nomad tribes in the State would not be Statesubjects even though they had

been residing in the State for generations ever since the time of which no man has any memory only for recent settlers that a condition is laid down

for acquisition of immovable property.

A further enquiry was made by the Revenue Minister when the matter went up in appeal to him. During that enquiry at a certain state the appellant

die not appear. This, however, is a matter of little moment because evidence on oath had been recorded to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar prior to

the absence of the appellant. The appellant was absent as he could not prove that he possessed immovable property. That point we have,

however, decided in his favour that there is no necessity of possession of immovable property for a person who claims to be hereditary

Statesubject of Class I.

We order that a certificate of a Statesubject of the first Class in accordance with the Notification quoted above may be granted to the appellant.