STATE OF ORISSAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                        [2010] 5 S.C.R. 1160


A                        STATE OF ORISSA
                                   V.
                  STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                    Original Suit No. 11 of 1968
                             MAY 5, 2010
B
     [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
                DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950:
c      Article 131 - Suit under - For a declaration that the
  disputed area was under administrative jurisdiction of plaintiff-
  State - Plea that at the time of the creation of' the plaintiff-
  State, the estate of which the disputed area was part of, was
  transferred to it - Held: Plaintiff-State failed to establish that
D it had ever exercised administrative control over the disputed
  area after its creation in 1936 - Defendant-State has
  established its and its predecessor States having
  administrative jurisdiction over the disputed area -
  Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936 -
E Section 3(2) and I Schedule Part-II.
        Article 131 - Suit under - Between States - Plea of
    adverse possession, waiver and acquiescence - Held:
    Procedural provisions applicable to ordinary civil suits are not
F   applicable to suits between States - Therefore, the pleas
    need not be considered.
       Articles 131, 1(2) rlw Entry 10 VII Schedule and Article 3
  - Suit between States - For a declaration that the disputed
  area was under administrative jurisdiction of plaintiff-State -
G Maintainability of the suit whether barred by Articles 1(2) rlw
  Entry 10 VII Schedule and 3 - Held: Maintainability of the suit
  is not barred because the plaintiff has not sought for increase,
  alteration or diminishing of any area but only for declaration
  that it had administrative control over the disputed area -
                                1160
     STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                   1161
                  PRADESH

Entertaining the .suit would not amount to encroachment on        A
the powers of parliament to alter State boundaries.
     Article 131 and its proviso - Letter by Madras
Government to Orissa Government listing the names of the
villages which fell under the respective jurisdictions of the
States - Held: The letter cannot be described as the              8
expression 'Other Similar Instruments' as occurring in proviso
to Article 131 - It was not issued under the authority of a
legislation or subordinate legislation nor was it a document
of formal character made under constitutional or statutory
authority - Thus original jurisdiction of Supreme Court is not    C
barred with reference to proviso of Article 131.
     Article 131 - Suit under - Applicability of provisions of
CPC and Limitation Act - Held: the procedural provisions
regulating the admissibility of the civil suits are not applicable
                                                                   0
to suits under Article 131 in strict sense - Hence plea that
suit was barred by time and not maintainable for want of notice
under Section 80 CPC not tenable - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 80 - Limitation Act, 1963.
     Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order 1936      E
- Section 3(2), (3) - Dispute between States arising post-
independence - Suit under Article 131 - Plea that the suit
was barred under the provisions of the Order - Held: The
exclusion of judicial scrutiny in the Order which was notified
in the pre-independence period cannot be mechanically              F
carried forward to the post-independence period - Supreme
Court jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Article 131 not
barred - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 131.
     The plaintiff-State filed the present suit under Article
131 of the Constitution of India against the defendant-           G
State for a declaration that the Borra Group of villages
was part of the plaintiff-State and for declaration that the
plaintiff- State has the right to possess the disputed area
in exclusion of the defendant. The plaintiff averred in its
plaint that the disputed area formed part of Jeypore              H
      1162    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A     (lmpartible) Estate at the time of creation of province of
      Orissa in 1936 by way of Government of India
      (Constitution of India) Order 1936 and after abolition of
      zamindari, the estate became part of State of Orissa; that
      the Province of Orissa, at the time of its creation, had
B     included the disputed area as contemplated in the First
      Schedule, Part I, clause 2 (iv) r/w Section 3 (1) of the
      Orissa Order; that the disputed area had remained within
      its administrative jurisdiction when the Province of Orissa
      was created and later on when the Constitution was
C     enforced; that the former province of Madras had
      admitted that the disputed area fell within the
      administrative jurisdiction of the State of Orissa; and that
      since the creation of the State of Andhra (in 1953) and
      later on after the creation of the State of Andhra Pradesh
      in 1956, the defendant-State has enforced its own
0
      administration over the disputed area.
          The defendant-State took the preliminary objection
      regarding maintainability of the suit. It contended that the
      suit was not maintainable under Article 131 of the
E     Constitution on the grounds that as the jurisdiction
      under Article 131 is subject to other provisions of the
      Constitution, the Supreme Court is barred from
      adjudicating issues relating to State boundaries because
      Article 1 (2) r/w Entry 10 of the First Schedule to the
F     Constitution exclusively addresses this aspect; and that
      as per Article 3 only Parliament is competent to increase,
      diminish or alter the boundaries of any State; that the suit
      was barred under the Proviso to Article 131 as the letter
      No. 829 dated 02.06.1936 exchanged between the
G     Secretary to the Government of Madras and the Chief
      Secretary of the Government of Orissa comes within the
      expression 'other similar document' as occurring in the
      Proviso to Article 131; that the maintainability of the suit
      was barred in view of Section 3 (2) and (3) of the
1-1   Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936
     STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                  1163
                  PRADESH

because under the provision, Governor General was                 A
contemplated as the final authority to decide any
question with respect to an agency, taluk, village, estate,
forest or any area in relation to the delimitation of the
boundary of the Province of Orissa; and that the suit was
also not maintainable in the absence of notice u/s. 80 CPC        B
and non-observance of law of limitation. On merit the
defendant- State interalia contended that in view of the
First Schedule to the Constitution the disputed area fell
in the erstwhile Province of Madras, the relevant district
of which is now an integral part of the State of Andhra           c
Pradesh; that the original Zamindari of Jeypore
(lmpartible) Estate had been included in the Schedule to
the Madras lmpartible Estate Act II of 1904 and the
disputed area was a subsequent acquisition which was
surrounded by another Zamindari and it formed a
                                                                  0
separate enclave; that the plaintiff-State had never
exercised administrative jurisdiction over the disputed
area even before the formation of the State of Andhra in
1953; that the defendant-State has acquired the right to
administer the disputed area by adverse possession; and           E
that the suit is barred because of waiver or acquiescence
on the part of the plaintiff-State as it did not raise any such
 dispute u/s. 3(3) of the Order under which the Province
of Orissa was constituted.
     Dismissing the suit, the Court                               F
     HELD: 1.1. Since plaintiff-State has not sought any
increase, alteration or diminishing of any area but only a
declaration that the disputed area comes under the
administrative jurisdiction of the plaintiff-State, Article 131
of the Constitution itself does not put fetters on Supreme        G
Court to decide the suit and there would be no
encroachment on the constitutionally sanctioned power
of the Parliament to alter State boundaries. (Para 8] (1178-
G-H; 1179-A]
                                                                  H
    1164      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A        1.2. The original jurisdiction of Supreme Court is not
    barred with reference to the proviso of Article 131 of the
    Constitution. The letter exchanged between the Secretary
    to the Government of Madras and the Chief Secretary of
    the Govf~rnment of Orissa (Letter No. 829) dated
8   02.06.1936 cannot be described as an 'other similar
    instrument' in the legal sense, the letter simply listed the
    names of the villages which would fall· under the
    jurisdiction of the Araku police station (which after the
    creation of the Province of Orissa, remained under the
C   Chintalapalli circle of Vizagapatam district in the erstwhile
    Madras Presidency), and those which would fall under
    the jurisdiction of the then Government of Orissa. It merely
    communicated the intentions of the Madras Government
    at that point of time and it was not issued under the
    authority of a legislation or subordinate legislation.
0   Neither can it be described as 'a document of a forma_I
    character which was made under constitutional or
    statutory authority'. [Paras 9 and 1OJ [1179-B~C; 1181-A-
    D]
E       Sree Mohan.Chowdhury v. The Chief Commissioner,
    Union Territory of Tripura 1964 (3) SCR 442, relied on.
          ·Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd edn., referred
    to.

F      2. The maintainability of the suit is not barred even
  in view of Section 3(2) and (3) of the Government of India
  (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936. The dispute between
  both the States germinated in 1957, which was well after
  independence and at that time the position of the
  Governor General had become obsolete and the
G Parliament was the supreme.law making body in the
  country. The exclusion of judicial scrutiny in the Orissa
  Order which was notified in the pre-independence period
  cannot be mechanically carried forward to the post-
, independence period. Therefore, it is futile to invoke the
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                 1165
                   PRADESH

authority of the Governor General as contemplated under          A
the Orissa Order. (Paras 5 and 12] (117 4-B; 1182-C-D]
     3. The procedural provisions which regulate the
 admissibility of civil suits before ordinary civil courts do
 not apply in the strict sense when the Supreme Court
 exercises its original jurisdiction to decide suits between
                                                                 8
 the States. Thus, the suit is maintainable even in the
 absence of notice u/s. 80 CPC and non-observance of
 law of limitation. (Paras 5 and 13] (1174-B; 1184-F]
      State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592;     C
 State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608, relied
 on.
       4.1. An interpretation that the whole of the Jeypore
  (lmpartib!e) Estate had been transferred to the then newly
  formed province of Orissa and that no part of the same         D
· had been left in the territories that are now part of the
  State of Andhra Pradesh, would be overlooking Section
  3(2) of the Orissa order as well as Part II of the First
  Schedule to the same. Section 3(2) contemplates how to
  define the land boundaries of Orissa. Those boundaries         E
  are described in part II of the First schedule to the Orissa
  Order. As contemplated by Section 3(2) and part II of the
  first schedule, a map was prepared by the Government
  of India as also by the erstwhile Presidency of Madras. A
  look at the map establishes that the villages in dispute       F
  are not territorially contiguous with the bounds of the
  State of Orissa. They are situated at some distance from
  the inter-State boundary and it would be quite untenable
  to declare them as coming within the plaintiff State's
  territory. [Para 15] (1186-B-F]                                G
     4.2. The plaintiff relying on Letter No. 829, dated 02-
 06-1936 sent by the Secretary of the Government of
 Madras to the Chief Secretary of the Government of
 Orissa took the plea that the Orissa Order did not exclude
 or preclude the inclusion of any territory not having a         H
    1166    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 5 S.G.R.


A   contiguous land connection with the main territory. the
    letter stated that the villages mentioned in List B
    (Prepared by Government of Madras) would fall within ,the
    administrative jurisdiction of the province of Oris·sa.
    However, the defendant has strongly refuted this claim
B   by submitting that the above-mentioned letter vvas
    eclipsed and substituted by Government Order
    Modification [G.O.M.) No. 2751 issued by the Home,·(A) ·
    Department, Dated 17-10-1936, by which the State of
    Madras had endorsed the contents of another Letter No.
C   2752, dated 14-10-1936 which declared that the BO:rra
    group of villages (shown as item 7 in List B in Letter No.
    829, dated 02-06-1936) would remain in the State of
    Madras: The defendant has strongly urged that in view
    of Letter No. 2753, dated 14-10-1936, all the villages
    shown in List B (except Chatuva) had remained inc ,the
0
    State of Madras and subsequently became part of the
    State of Andhra in 1953 and the successor State of
    Andhra Pradesh in 1956. [Para 17] [1187-E-H; 1188:AJ
        4.3. The plaintiff-State had admitteo in Letter No.
E  1671, dated 07-07-1962,, sent by the Chief Secretary,
   Government of Orissa to the Secretary, Ministry of H9me
   Affairs, Government of India (Exh.1) that the disputed area
   was outside the external land boundary of the State of
   Orissa. The Government of India acted on this letter .and
 F wrote a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide
   Letter No. F. 38/4/62- SR-RI (dated 16-8-1962), to which the
   Government of Andhra Pradesh sent a. reply, vide Letter
   No. 2504-J/62.8 (dated 30-03-1963), (Exh. 3) wherein it was
   stated that ever since 1936 this area has been under the
 G continuous        mana.gement       and     administratjon
   successively of Madras, Andhra and Andhra Pradesh
   Governments and the Orissa Government has never in
   the past exercised any jurisdiction or control over ~he
   area. Exh. 3 also cited the order of the Andhra Pradesh
.H High Court in a writ petition, wherein it had been declared
                                                          :' ·- .
        STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                 1167
                     PRADESH
  that a map was prepared at the time of the promulgation           A
  of the Orissa Order, which clearly indicated that the
  disputed area fell within the territory of the erstwhile
  Madras Presidency. Subsequently, the Government of
  India, vide its Letter No. 38/4/62-SR(R), [Exh. 2] sent a
  reply to the Government of Orissa after taking into               B
  account the contents of the letter sent by the
  Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was stated
  that the letter shows that the area claimed by the Orissa
  Government being well within the adjoining State could
  not .have been intended to form part of Orissa and that           c
  the ·intention is borne out by the description of external
  land boundaries of Orissa in part II of the First Schedule
  read with para 3(2) of the Government of India
  (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936. [Para 18] (1188-B;
   1188-G-H; 1189-A-EJ                                              D
          4.4. After examining Section 3 of the Orissa Order
     along with the First Schedule to the same, and perusing
     the correspondence exchanged between Government of
     Orissa, Government of India and Government of Andhra
     Pradesh, it is found that the disputed area did not form a     E
·· · part· of the Province of Orissa as constituted by the Orissa
     Order; that the former Province of Madras and
     subsequently the State of Madras did not admit that the
     disputed area formed part of the plaintiff-State; that the
     displited area did not remain under the administration of      F
     the Province of Orissa when the said Province was
     formed and thereafter the State of Orissa; and that on the
     basis of the letter dated 7.7.1962 by the Government of
     Orissa addressed to the Government of India (Annexure
     "D" to the Plaint),the plaintiff-State cannot lay any claim    G
     at all to the disputed area after 1950. (Paras 5 and 18]
     (117 4-0-H; 1189-F]
       5. In view of the above finding it is clear that the
   disputed area was not within the territories of the plaintiff.
   Stat~ as constituted under the Constitution of India.            H
    1168    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   (Paras 5 and 19] (117 4-C-D]
        6. The plaintiff has failed to establish that it had
   governed the disputed area prior to the constitution of
   the State of Andhra in 1953, especially in the light of the
   fact that the disputed area is located at a considerable
8
   distance from the inter-State boundary. The documents
   relied upon by the plaintiff-State do not show that the
   plaintiff-State had exercised administrative jurisdiction
   over the disputed area, since the same is surrounded by
   villages that have undeniably been under the
C administrative ~ontrol of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In
   fact, the plaintiff has admitted that till the abolition of the
   Jeypore Estate, it was not the State of Orissa but the
   Zamindari which had collected land revenue from the
   disputed area. A plain reading of Part I and II of the Orissa
D Order along with the First Schedule to the same, shows
   that the Order-in-Council did not intend to include the
   disputed area within the administrative control of the
   State of Orissa. Thus it is held that the disputed area did
   not form a part of the Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate originally
E and subsequently it does not form part of the province
   of Orissa; that the expression the Jeypore (lmpartlble)
   Estate means the Estate as included in the Schedule to
  ·Madras lmpartible Estate since the latter includes
   subsequent acquisitions of various properties situated
F outside the original Estate and in different Districts and
   Provinces; and that the defendant or its predecessor
   State or Province has always exercised administrative
   control over the disputed area and the said area was at
   all material times treated as if it formed part of the
G defendant's State. (Paras 5 and 22] (1191-G-H; 1192-A-B;
   1175-A·C]
       7. Since the proceedings in an original suit under
  Article 131 of the Constitution are entirely distinguishable
  from ordinary civil suits, the issues viz. whether the
H defendant has acquired the right to administer the area
     STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA               1169
                  PRADESH

by ·adverse possession, and whether the suit is barred A
either because of waiver or acquiescence on the part of
the plaintiff as it did not raise any such dispute u/s. 3(3)
of the Order under which the Province of Orissa was
constituted, need not be answered. [Paras 5 and 23]
[1192-C-D; 1175-C-D]                                         B
     State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608,
relied on.
      8.1. The plaintiff has failed to establish that it had
exercised administrative control over the disputed area C
after the creation of Orissa in 1936. The defendant has
produced documents which entail that it is the defendant-
Sta te and its predecessor States which have been
exercising the administrative jurisdiction over the
disputed area. The defendant has also demonstrated that
all the villages that are part of the Borra Group, lie within D
the Ananthagiri Mandal of the present-day
Vishakhapatnam District (Exhibits. E; K/1; Q; R). [Paras
25) [1193-A-C]
     8.2. The Orissa Order of 1936 did not intend to E
allocate the disputed area to the State of Orissa, even
though it had been acquired by the Zamindar of the
Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate at a certain stage. After the
formation of the province of Orissa, the disputed area was
part of the Vizagapatam District of the erstwhile Madras F
Presidency and despite the contrary claims of the
plaintiff-State, the disputed area was notified as part of
the Srungavara.pukota assembly constituency in the
defendant-State. The plaintiff-State also could not
establish that the inhabitants of the disputed area
recognize Oriya as their first language. [Para 26) [1193- G
G-H; 1194-A-B]
                    Case Law Reference:
    1964 (3) SCR 442           Relied on.         Para 9
                                                              H
    1170    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A       (1977) 3 sec 592             Relied on.           Para 13
        (1977) 4 SCC 608             Relied on.           Paras
                                                       13 and 23
        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Original Suit No. 11 of
B   1968.
        Under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
      B.A. Mohanti, H.S. Gururaja, Raj Kumar Mehta, Suman
  Kukrety, Mamta Tripathi, Mayuri Vats, Shobhit Jain, Manoj
C Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, T.V. George, Rahul Shukla for the
  appearing parties.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. This is a suit filed under
  Article 131 of the Constitution of India by the State of Orissa
D (plaintiff) against the State of Andhra Pradesh (defendant) for
  a declaration that the Borra Group of villages, also referred to
  as 'Borra Mutha', form part of the State of Orissa. Admittedly,
  the group of villages is located within the geographical limits
  of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
E
        2. The State of Orissa in its plaint has averred that Borra .
   Mutha [hereinafter 'disputed area') formed part of the Jeypore
  (lmpartible) Estate at the time of the creation of the province
  of Orissa in 1936 by way of Government of India (Constitution
F of Orissa) Order, 1936 [hereinafter 'Orissa Order'] and that the
  said Estate subsequently became part of the modern-day State
  of Orissa after the abolition of the Zamindari system. The
  plaintiff has submitted that the Province of Orissa, at the time
  of its creation, had included the disputed area as contemplated
G in the First Schedule, Part I, clause 2 (iv) read with Section 3
  (1) of the Orissa Order. Albeit, the disputed area is not
  territorially contiguous with the State of Orissa, yet the plaintiff
  state claims that it had remained within its administrative
  jurisdiction when the Province of Orissa was created and later

H
       STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                       1171
        PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
  on when the Constitution was enforced. It was also averred in          A
  the plaint that the former province of Madras had admitted that
  the disputed area fell within the administrative jurisdiction of the
  State of Orissa. The plaintiff has also alleged that since the
  creation of the State of Andhra (in 1953) and later on after the
. creation of the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1956, the defendant         B
  state has enforced its own administration over the disputed
  area. The plaint then narrates as to how the defendant's
  combative approach had compelled the State of Orissa to write
  a letter (No. 16715, Ref. dated 7-7-1962) to the Central
  Government so that the latter could persuade the State of              C
  Andhra Pradesh to vacate the disputed area. The Staie of
  Andhra Pradesh in its reply to the Central Government vide its
  letter (No. 2504- J/62.8) dated 30-3-1963, expressed its
  inability to vacate the disputed area by urging that the disputed
  area legitimately belonged to the State of Andhra Pradesh as
  per the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition        D
   No. 539/1957. Accordingly, the Central Government intimated
  the State of Orissa that it was not in a position to intervene in
  the matter relating to the disputed area, vide its letter [No. 38 I
  4162-SR (R)] dated 24-1-1964. According to the plaintiff state,
   its territorial integrity has been violated by the defendant state    E
  which has committed acts of trespass on account of its refusal
  to vacate the disputed area, therebyl"mpelling the plaintiff to
  approach this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. The
  plaintiff has averred that the cause of action arose after the
  formation of the State of Andhra (under Andhra State Act,              F
  1953).

      3. As stated earlier, the State of Orissa has filed the
 present suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking relief
 in the form of a declaration that the State of Andhra Pradesh G
 h9s committed trespass on its land by interfering in the
 administration of some of its villages. The plaintiff's prayer is
 reproduced belotoy:

      "(i) A declaration that the area as shown in Annexure "B"
      including therein the main village Borra with 12 hamlets           H
    1172     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A        (Borra Mutha) is a part of the plaintiff's territory and the
         plaintiff has the right to possess and administer the
         disputed area in exclusion of the defendant.         ..
         (ii) A declaration that the defendant is liable to vacate the
B        disputed area.

         (iii) A decree for eviction of the defendant from all and/or
         any part of the disputed area as are under illegal
         possession and administrative control of the defendant
         and further directing the defendant to vacate the disputed
c        area and return the area to the uninterrupted possession,
         control and administration of the plaintiff.

         (iv) The cost of the suit and such further relief which may
         seem just and proper to this Hon'ble Court and to which
D        the plaintiff may be found entitled in the circumstances of
         the case and in the interest of justice."

          4. The defendant (State of Andhra Pradesh) in its written
    statement has taken the preliminary objection that the prayer
    sought by the plaintiff does not fall within the scope of the
E   original jurisdiction of this Court as contemplated in Article 131,
    since that provision limits the jurisdiction by expressly stating
    that the latter is 'subject to the other provisions of the
    Constitution'. In this regard, attention has been drawn to Article
    1(2) of the Constitution which provides that the territories of
F   States shall be as specified in the First Schedule to the
    Constitution. In view of this provision, it has been urged that the
    territories comprising the State of Orissa have already been
    specified in Entry No. 1 O of the First Schedule to the
    Constitution and therefore this suit is not maintainable. The
G   defendant has taken the stand that the province of Orissa was
    constituted under the Orissa Order, issued on 3-03-1936 by His
    Majesty in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 289 (ii)
    of the Government 0f India Act, 1935. Section 3(2) of the Orissa
    Order had provided that if a boundary dispute arose in respect
H   of the specified territories, then the (jecision of the Governor
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                      1173
       PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

General would be final. Therefore, it was contended that since         A
the plaintiff state had not claimed administrative jurisdiction over
the disputed area and neither did it assert its claim before the
Governor General, no relatable question can be raised after the
enforcement of Article 1(2) of the Constitution. Furthermore, it
was reasoned that the territories of all the States had been           B
specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution, which made
it amply clear that the disputed area fell in the erstwhile
Province of Madras, the relevant district of which is now an
integral part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In response to the
 plaint, it has been reasoned that even if this Court's original       c
jurisdiction under Article 131 were to be assumed, reference
 must be made to Section 3(2) of the Orissa Order which
controls the operation of Section 3(1) ofthe same which defines
and delimits the area to be included in the Province. As a
 natural corollary to this, if a particular area is outside the        0
external land boundary as described in Part I of the First
Schedule to the Orissa Order, it cannot form part of the State
of Orissa. It has been contended that the reference to Jeypore
(lmpartible) Estate must be construed in view of the fact that
the original Zamindari had been included in the Schedule to the        E
 Madras lmpartible Estate Act II of 1904. The holder of the Estate
made subsequent acquisitions which were geographically
situated outside the original Zamindari and the holders might
not have intended the inclusion of those acquisitions in the
original Zamindari. It has also been averred by the defendant
that it firmly believes that the disputed area was a subsequent        F
acquisition which was surrounded by another Zamindari and it
formed a separate enclave. The defendant has further
submitted that its administration of the disputed area has always
been lawful and that the plaintiff had never exercised
administrative jurisdiction over the disputed area, even before        G
the formation of the State of Andhra in 1953.

     5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues have been framed for adjudication:
                                                                       H
    1174     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [20101 5 ·s.c.R.


A Preliminary Issues

         (1) Whether the suit is maintainable under Article 131?

         (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of Section 3
    (2) and (3) of the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa)
8   Order, 1936?                        ;

         (3) Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of
    notice under Section 80 CPC?

c        (4) Whether the suit is within limitation prescribed by law?

    On Merits

       (5) Whether the Disputed Area was within the territories
  of the Plaintiff state as constituted under the Constitution of
D India?

         (6) Did the Disputed Area form a part of the Province of
    Orissa as constituted by the Government of India (Constitution
    of Orissa) Order, 1936?

E        (7) Did the disputed area form a part of the Jeypore
    (lmpartible) Estate originally and subsequently and does it form
    part of the province of Orissa?

         (8) Did the former Province of Madras and subsequently
F   the State of Madras admit that the disputed area formed part         .. '
    of the plaintiff state?

        (9) Whether the disputed area remained und.er the
    administration of the Province of Orissa when the said Province
    was formed and thereafter the State of Orissa?
G
         (10) In view of the letter dated 7. 7.1962 by the Government
    of Orissa addressed to the Government of India (Anne~ure "D"
    to the Plaint), can the Plaintiff lay any claim at all to the said
    area after 1950?
H
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                    1175
       PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
     (11) Whether the expression the Jeypore (lmpartiole)            A
Estate means the Estate as included in the Schedule to Madras
lmpartible Estate since the latter includes subsequent
acquisitions of various properties situated outside the original
Estate and in different Districts and Provinces?
                                                                     B
    (12) Whether the defendant or its predecessor State or
Province has always exercised administrative control over the
disputed area and whether the said area was at all material
times treated as if it formed part of the defendant's State?

     (13} Wh8ther in any event the Defendant has acquired the        C
right to administer the area by adverse possession?

     (14) Whether the suit is barred either because of waiver
or acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff as it did not raise
any such dispute under Section 3(3) of the Order under which         D
the Province of Orissa was constituted?

    (15) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief and if so
to what relief?

Re: Issue I                                                          E

      6. As noted earlier, the State of Orissa was constituted
under the Orissa Order, which came into effect on 1 .4 .1936.
The Borra Group of Villages (i.e. Borra and twelve hamlets)
admittedly are not territorially contiguous with the main land of F
Orissa. The interstate boundary is 11 kilometers away (aerial
distance) from Borra and its surrounding villages. This group
of villages is situated within the geographical iimits of the State
of Andhra Pradesh which earlier formed part of Jeypore
(lmpartible) Estate, a Zamindari, before the creation of State
of Orissa. Part II of the Orissa Order provided the following:      G

                               PART II

         . Definition of Orissa and Date of Separation

     3. (1) The Province of Orissa (hereafter in this Order          H
    1176    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A       referred to as "Orissa") shall consist of the areas specified
        in Part I of the First Schedule to this Order, and
        accordingly as from the date of the coming into operation
        of the provisions of sub section (1) of section two hundred
        and eighty-nine of th~ Act relating to the formation of the
B       Province of Bihar and Orissa, those areas shall cease to
        form part of the Province of Bihar and Orissa, the
        Presidency of Madras and the Central Provinces
        respectively.

        3. (2) The external land boundaries of Orissa shall be as
c       described in Part II of the said schedule.

        3. (3) If any question arises with respect to the boul'ldaries
        as existing at the date of this Order, of any district, Agency,
        taluk, village, estate, forest or other area referred to in the
D       said Schedule or otherwise with respect to the delimitation
        of the boundary of Orissa, that question shall be referred
        to the Governor- General, whose decision thereon shall be
        final.

E
    The first schedule to the Orissa Order described the areas
    which would constitute the Province of Orissa. The relevant
    provisions are reproduced below:

F                              First Schedule

                                   Part - I

        Areas comprised in the province of Orissa

G       1. That portion of the Province of Bihar and Orissa which
        is at the date of this Order known as Orissa division
        thereof.

        2. Areas transferred from the presidency of Madras:-

H       (i) The Ganjam Agency Tracts;
       STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                       1177
        PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

    (ii) the following areas in the non- Agency portion of the           A
    Ganjam district viz., the taluks of Ghumsur, Aska, Surda,
    Koda la and Chatrapur and so much of the taluks of lchapur
    and Berhampur as lies to the north and west of the line
    described, in part II of this schedule;
                                                                         B
     (iii) So much of the Parlakimedi Estate as lies to the north
     and east of the said line; and

     (iv) The following areas in the Vizagapatam district, that
     is to say, the Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate and so much of
     the Pottangi Taluk as is not included in that estate.               C

After the enforcement of the Constitution of India, the territorial
extent of the State of Orissa was specified in Entry No. 10 of
the First Schedule to the Constitution. The State of Orissa has
prayed for a declaration that the main viUage Borra along with           D
12 hamlets (Borra Mutha) is a part and parcel of the plaintiffs
territory and that the plaintiff has the right to possess and
administer the disputed area to the exclusion of the defend~nt.

     7. The defendant, in light of Article 131 and the proviso to        E
the same Article has contended that this Court lacks jurisdiction
and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. Article 131 provides the following:

     "131. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. -
      Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme        F
    · Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court;· have original
      jurisdiction in any dispute-

     (a) .. .

     (b) .. .                                                            G

     (c) between two or more States,

     If and in so far the dispute involves any question (whether
                                                                         H
    1178     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 5 S.C.R.

A        of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal
         right depends:

         Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a
         dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant,
B        engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which,
         having been entered into or executed before the
         commencement of the Constitution, continues in
         operation after such commencement, or which provides
         that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a
         dispute."
c
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

          8. The defendant's objection to the maintainability of the
    suit under Article 131 is on two grounds. The first objection is
o   that the exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 131 is
    subject to the other provisions of Constitution, and therefore this
    Court is barred from adjudicating delicate issues relating to
    state boundaries since Article 1(2) read with Entry 10 of the
    First Schedule to the Constitution conclusively addresses this
E   aspect. The second strand of the objection is that as per Article
    3 of the Constitution, only the Union Parliament is competent
    to increase, diminish or alter the boundaries of any State in the
    manner provided. In response to this reasoning, the plaintiff has
    pointed to the contents of the prayer to assert that there is no
F   intention to seek an alteration of boundaries but instead, the
    prayer simply seeks a declaration from this Court that the
    disputed area comes within the plaintiff State as contemplated
    in Entry 10 of Schedule I to the Constitution and that the plaintiff
    has the right to possess and administer the disputed area to
    the exclusion of the defendant. The plaintiff has also prayed for
G   a declaration that the defendant is liable to vacate the disputed
    area. Since plaintiff has not sought any increase, alteration or
    diminishing of any area but only a declaration that the disputed
    area comes under the administrative jurisdiction of the plaintiff
    state, we are inclined to agree with the view that Article 131
H   itself does not put fetters on this Court to decide this original
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                 1179
        PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

suit and there would be no encroachment on the constitutionally A
sanctioned power of the Parliament to alter state boundaries.

     9. In order to decide whether this suit is barred under the
proviso to Article 1·31, we will have to ascertain the basis of
the plaintiff's claim and the documents which have been 8
produced in support of the contentions. The plaintiff state, in
order to fortify its claim, has relied on a letter exchanged
between the Secretary to the Government of Madras and the
Chief Secretary of the Government of Orissa (Letter No. 829)
dated 02.06.1936 (Referred to in Para 5 of the Plaint, Exhibit C
60). The letter was written to communicate to the Government
of Orissa that the Araku police station and the villages
mentioned in List A (prepared by Government of erstwhile
Presidency of Madras) would from that point of time come
under the jurisdiction of the Chintapalli circle of the
Vizagapatam district in the erstwhile Madras Presidency. In D
distinction from this, the letter further stated that the villages
enumerated in List B (prepared by Government of Madras)
would fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Orissa and
accordingly under any police station which the Orissa
government deemed fit. In respect of the correspondence by E
way of this letter, the operative question for us is whether the
said letter comes within the expression 'other similar instrument'
which appears in the Proviso to Article 131 of the Constitution.
If the correspondence does indeed come within the said
expression, this Court cannot decide the present suit on merits. F
For guidance on how to interpret this expression, we can refer
to the observations of thi? Court in Sree Mohan Chowdhury v.
 The Chief Commissioner, Union Territory of Tripura, [1964]
3 SCR 442, (B.P. Sinha, C.J., at p. 454):
                                                                G
    "Is the President's Order in question an "instrument" within
    the meaning of the section? The General Clauses Act
    does not define the expression "instrument". Therefore, the
    expression must be taken to have been used in the sense
    in which it is generally understood in legal parlance. In H
     1180    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A        Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases (Third
         Edition, Volume 2, page 1472), "instrument" is described
         as follows:

                "An 'instrument' is writing, and generally imports a
                document of a formal 1r'.:,gal kind. Semble, the word
.B
                may include an Act of Parliament... (11)
                Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Viet. c. 41), s.2
                (xiii), 'instrument' includes deed, will, inclosure,
                award and Act of Parliament. .. "

c        The expression is also used to signify a deed interpartes
         or a charter or a record or other writing of a formal nature.
         But in the context of the General Clauses Act, it has to be
         understood as including reference to a formal legal writing
         like an Order made under a statute or subordinate
D        legislation or any document of a formal character made
         under constitutional or statutory authority ... "

     In P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Law Lexicon, 2nd edn. (Wadhwa &
     Co., 1997) at p. 957, the word "instrument" has been defined
     as:
E
         "a writing as the means of giving formal expression to
         some act, contract, process, or proceeding as a deed,
         contract, writ etc. 'A writing given as the means of creating,
         securing modifying, or terminating a right or affording
F        evidence; a deed of conveyance, a grant, a patent, an
         indenture etc. A formal legal writing e.g. a record deed or
         written instrument. 'Anything reduced to writing; written
         instrument, or instrument of writing; more particularly, a
         document of formal or solemn character.' Instrument is a
G        word most frequently used to denote something reduced
         to writing, as a means of evidence, and writing as the
         means of giving formal expression to some act; a writing
         expressive of some act, contract, process or proceeding;
         a writing containing any contract or order."
H
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                    1181
       PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

     10. In respect of the letter exchanged between the              A
Secretary to the Government of Madras and the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Orissa, it must be noted that
the letter simply listed the names of the villages which would
fall under the jurisdiction of the Araku police station (which after
the creation of the Province of Orissa, remained under the B
Chintalapalli circle of Vizagapatam district in the erstwhile
Madras Presidency), and those which would fall under the
jurisdiction of the then Government of Orissa. After scrutinizing
the contents of this letter, we find that it cannot be described
as an 'other similar instrument' in the legal sense. The letter c
merely communicated the intentions of the Madras Government
at that point of time and it was not issued under the authority
of a legislation or subordinate legislation. Neither can it be
described as 'a document of a formal character which was
made under constitutional or statutory authority'. In the light of
                                                                      0
this finding, we hold that the original jurisdiction of this Court is
not barred with reference to the proviso of Article 131 of the
Constitution. We, therefore, hold this issue of maintainability to
be in favour of the plaintiff.

Re: Issue 2                                                          E

     11. With respect to this issue, the defendant has averred
in the written statement that under the Orissa Order, the
Governor General was contemplated as the final authority to
decide any question with respect to an agency, taluk, village, F
estate, forest or any area in relation to the delimitation of the
boundary of the Province Orissa. In view of the same, it was
asserted that this Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the
present suit. On the contrary, the plaintiff avers that after the
formation of the Province of Orissa in 1936, it was the ·. G
Government of Orissa which had exercised jurisdiction over the
disputed area since there was no dispute with the erstwhile
Madras Presidency. It was further stated that after the abolition
of the Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate under the Orissa Estates
Abolition Act, 1952, it was the Government of Orissa which
                                                                     H
    1182     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   collected land revenue from these villages. In fact, the plaintiff
    State has averred that when the Constitution was enforced in
    1950, it had control over the disputed area but the situation
    changed after the formation of the State of Andhra in 1953
    which subsequently became part of the State of Andhra
B   Pradesh in 1956. From the viewpoint of the plaintiff State, the
    defendant state then began transgressing into its legal rights
    by interfering in the disputed area.

         12. The dispute between both the states germinated in
    1957, which was well after independence and at that time the
C   position of the Governor General had become obsolete and the
    Union Parliament was the supreme law making body in the
    country. The exclusion of judicial scrutiny in the Orissa Order
    which was notified in the pre-independence period cannot be
    mechanically carried forward to the post-independence period.
D   Therefore, it is futile to invoke the authority of the Governor
    General as contemplated under the Orissa Order. Accordingly,
    Issue 2 will have to be answered in favour of the plaintiff.

    Re: Issues 3 & 4
E
       13. These issues can be addressed together since they
  both pertain to procedural considerations vis-a-vis the
  maintainability of this original suit before this Court. The
  defendant has averred that the suit is liable to be dismissed
  on two procedural grounds, firstly, that no notice was served
F upon the defendant by the plaintiff as required under section
  80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter 'CPC']
  and secondly, that the period of limitation prescribed for
  obtaining the nature of relief sought by the plaintiff is only three
  years from the date of accrual of the right, as per Article 58 of
G the Limitation Act, 1963. The right, if any, accrued to the plaintiff
  on 01-04-1936, i.e., when the Province of Orissa was
  constituted. In interpreting the scope of Article 131 of the
  Constitution in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) 3
  SCC 592, Chandrachud, J. [As his Lordship then was] held that
H the requirement for entertaining a suit under Article 131 is that
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                       1183
        PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

the suit must involve a question, whether of law or fact, on which      A
the existence or extent of a legal right depends. The purpose
of Article 131 is to afford a forum for the resolution of disputes
which depend for their decision on the existence or extent of a
legal right. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 4
SCC 608, Chandrachud, J. [as his Lordship then was] held:               B

     "162. The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by
     Article 131 of the Constitution should not be tested on the
     anvil of banal rules which are applied under the Code of
     Civil Procedure for determining whether a suit is
     maintainable. Article 131 undoubtedly confers 'original            C
     jurisdiction' on the Supreme Court and the commonest
     form of a legal proceeding which is tried by a Court in the
     exercise of its original jurisdiction is a suit. But a
     constitutional provision, which confers exclusive jurisdiction
     on this Court to entertain disputes of a certain nature in         D
     the exercise of original jurisdiction cannot be equated with
     a provision conferring a right on a Civil Court to entertain
     a common suit so as to apply to an original proceeding
     under Article 131 the canons of a suit which is ordinarily
     triable under Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure by the         E
     court of the lowest grade competent to try it.Advisedly,
      the Constitution does not describe the proceeding which
     may be brought under Article 131 as a 'suit' and
     significantly, Article 131 uses words and phrases not
     commonly employed for determining the jurisdiction of a            F
     Court of first instance to entertain and try a suit. It does not
     speak of a 'cause of action'. an expression of known and
     definite legal import in the word of witness actions. Instead,
     it employs the word 'dispute', which is no part of the
     elliptical jargon of law. But above all, Article 131 which in      G
     a manner of speaking is a self-contained code on matters
     falling within its purview provides expressly for the condition
     subject to which an action can lie under it. That condition
     is expressed by the clause: "if and in so far as the dispute
     involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the        H
    1184     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A       existence of or extent of a legal right depends." By the very
        terms of the article, therefore, the sole condition which is
        required to be satisfied for invoking the original jurisdiction
        of this Court is that the dispute between the parties referred
        to in clauses (a) to (c) must involve a question on which
B       the existence or extent of a legal right depends."

    Chandrachud J. further had categorically stated:

         "163 ... I consider that the Constitution has purposefully
         conferred on this Court a jurisdiction which is untrammelle.d
C        by     considerations which fetter the jurisdiction of a court
         of first instance, which entertains and tries suits of a civil
         nature. The very nature of the dispute arising under Article
         131 is different, both in form and substance, from the
         nature of claims which require adjudication in ordinary
D        suits."

    In support of the same view, P.N. Bhagwati J. [as his Lordship
    then was] had observed:

        "165. A proceeding under Article 131 stands in sharp
E       contrast with an ordinary civil suit. The competition in such
        a proceeding is between two or more governments- either
        the one or the other possesses the constitutional power
        to act."

F In the light of the aforesaid observations, it is evident that the
  procedural provisions which regulate the admissibility of civil
  suits before ordinary civil courts do not apply in the strict sense
  when this Court exercises its original jurisdiction to decide suits
  between States. Accordingly, Issue 3 and 4 will have to be
G answered in favour of the plaintiff.

    Re: Issues 6, 8, 9 & 10

         14. These four issues are taken together since they are
    interconnected and the fate of the suit largely depends upon
H   the answer to the aforesaid issues. The erstwhile Zamindar of
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                     1185
       PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJL]

Jeypore was the holder of the lmpartible estate of Jeypore as A
well as the lmpartible estates of Madugula and Pachipenta.
There is no doubt that all of these estates fell within the territory
of the erstwhile Presidency of Madras till 01-04-1936. However,
under Section 289(iii) of the Government of India Act, 1935, His
Majesty the King Emperor had passed the Orissa Order in 1936 B
which led to the carving out of the province of Orissa. The Orissa
Order had contemplated that the areas constituting the Jeypore
estate were to be transferred to the province of Orissa. His
Majesty's Council had at the same day (i.e. 3-03-1936) issued
the Government of India (Excluded and partially Excluded areas)      c
Order 1936 [hereinafter 'Order-in-Council'] acting under Section
91 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Part II of the
schedule to the latter Order included the areas that were to be
transferred to Orissa from the Vizagapatam Agency in the
erstwhile Madras presidency. The effect of this order was the
                                                                      0
transfer of Jeypore which included within its ambit the village of
Borra, Gatevalsa etc. As noted earlier, the Jeypore estate that
was contemplated as part of the State of Orissa was
subsequently abolished in accordance with the Orissa Estate
Abolition Act, 1952.
                                                                      E
      15. The plaintiff has submitted that the Order-in-Council had
specifically included the whole of the estate of Jeypore in the
province of Orissa and that no part of it was intended to be
retained in the erstwhile Madras presidency. In support of this
contention, reliance has been placed on the words of Section F
3 read with Part I of the First Schedule to the Orissa Order. The
relevant section provides:-

    "(I) The province of Orissa (hereinafter in this Order referred
    to as (Orissa) shall consist of the areas specified in Part I G
    of the First Schedule to this order, and accordingly as from
    the date of coming into operation of the provisions of Sub-
    section (1) of section two hundred and eighty-nine of the
    Act relating to the formation of the province of Bihar and
    Orissa, those areas shall case to form part of the province
                                                                     H
    1186    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A       of Bihar and Orissa, the Presidency of Madras and the
        Central Provinces respectively."

  Now it must be noted that Part I of the First Schedule to the
  Orissa Order defines the area which constituted the province
8 of Orissa. Clause 2 (iv) of this part states that the following
  areas in the Vizagapatnam district, that is to say, the Jeypore
  (lmpartible) Estate and so much of the Pottangi taluk as is not
  included in that estate, are comprised in the province of Orissa.
  On the basis of the language extracted above, it was asserted
  that the whole of the Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate had been
C transferred to the then newly formed province of Orissa and that
  no part of the same had been left in the territories that are now
  part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, such an
  interpretation would be overlooking Section 3(2) of the brissa
  order as well as Part II of the First Schedule to the same.
D Section 3(2) contemplates how to define the land boundaries
  of Orissa. Those boundaries are described in part II of the First
  schedule to the Orissa Order. As contemplated by Section 3(2)
  and part II of the first schedule, a map was prepared by the
  Government of India as also by the erstwhile Presidency of
E Madras. Undoubtedly, a look- at the map establishes that the
  villages in dispute are not territorially contiguous with the
  bounds of the State of Orissa. They are situated at some
  distance from the inter-state boundary and it would be quite
  untenable to declare them as coming within the plaintiff state's
F territory.

       16. However, the plaintiff has relied on two cases to argue
  that a departure can be made from the norm of territorial
  continuity. Reference has been made to the examples of the
G Sankara Tract, which is an enclave of the State of Madhya
  Pradesh that is physically located within the State of Orissa as
  well as the Union Territory of Pondicherry which includes a few
  enclaves that are located at a considerable physical distance
  from each other. However, these two examples relate to some
  specific historical considerations and these cannot be equated
H
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                    1187
       PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

with the dispute before us. The example of Sankara Tract is          A
distinguishable from the present case since this tract was
earlier part of Sarangarh, an erstwhile Princely State which
acceded to the Union of India on 1-1-1948. The absorption of
the Sankara Tract in the State of Madhya Pradesh can hence
be traced back to an instrument of accession, which is a             B
circumstance inviting considerations that are entirely different
from those before us in the present suit. Furthermore, it must
be noted that the Union Territory of Pondicherry comprises of
areas which were earlier governed by the French government
and under a special agreement with the French Government,            c
Pondicherry was merged with the Union of India. This Court
therefore cannot examine the validity of such an agreement in
view of the proviso to Article 131, primarily because the same
was an outcome of political negotiations. The general rule is
that the extent of a province should be based on the principle       D
of territorial continuity.

      17. The plaintiff has denied the averment of the defendant
on this point by asserting that the Orissa Order did not exclude
or preclude the inclusion of any territory not having a contiguous
land connection with the main territory. In support of this          E
contention, the plaintiff has relied on Letter No. 829, dated 02-
06-1936 sent by the Secretary of the Government of Madras
to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Orissa, which
stated that the villages mentioned in List B (Prepared by
Government of Madras) would fall within the administrative           F
jurisdiction of the province of Orissa. However, the defendant
has strongly refuted this claim by submitting that the above-
mentioned letter was eclipsed and substituted by Government
Order Modification [G.O.M.) No. 2751 issued by the Home (A)
Department, Dated 17-1O~1936, by which the State of Madras           G
had endorsed the contents of another Letter No. 2752, dated
14-10-1936 which declared that the Borra group of villages
(shown as item 7 in List Bin Letter No. 829, dated 02-06-1936)
would remain in the State of Madras. The defendant has
strongly urged that in view of Letter No. 2753, dated 14-10-         H
    1188    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 OJ 5 S.C.R.


A   1936, all the villages shown in List B (except Chatuva) had
    remained in the State of Madras and subsequently became part
    of the State of Andhra in 1953 and the successor State of
    Andhra Pradesh in 1956.

B        18. We should give due importance to the fact that the
    plaintiff State had admitted in Letter No. 1671, dated 07-07-
    1962, sent by the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa to the
    Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
    (Exh.1) that the disputed area was outside the external land
C   boundary of the State of Orissa. The letter stated:

        "... But the external boundary of the Orissa province as
        defined in the First Schedule of the order being
        inconsistent with the enumeration of the areas indicated
        in Part- II, the resultant effect was that the "Borra Mutha"
D       which was a part of the lmpartible estate of Jeypore,
        remained in Madras province (now in Andhra Pradesh)
        and continues to be administered as part of it right up to
        date ... "

E   Furthermore, while taking into account the operation of the
    Orissa Order of 1936, the letter had stated:

        "... this Government feels that the mere fact that in the map
        of Orissa prepared in pursuance of the above order, this
        area was not shown by mistake, cannot take away the
F       legal claim of this State, and therefore the Government of
        India are requested to advice the Andhra Pradesh
        Government to restore the 'Borra Muttah' to Government
        of Orissa sine it forms a part of Orissa in accordance with
        the Constitution of Orissa Order, 1936 ... "
G
  As noted earlier, the Government of India acted on this letter
  and wrote a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide
  Letter No. F. 38/4/62- SR-RI (dated 16-8-1962), to which the
  Government of Andhra Pradesh sent a reply, vide Letter No.
H 2504-J/62.8 (dated 30-03-1963), (Exh. 3) wherein it was stated:
     STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                  1189
      PRADESH [K.G. BAL.t..KRISHNAN, CJI.]
     "Ever since 1936 this area has been under the continuous A
     management and administration successively of Madras,
     Andhra and Andhra Pradesh Govts. and the Orissa
     Government has never in the past exercised any jurisdiction
     or control over the area."
                                                                  B
Exh. 3 also cited the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in W.P. No. 539/1957, wherein it had been declared that a map
was prepared at the time of the promulgation of the Orissa
Order, which clearly indicated that the disputed area fell within
the territory of the erstwhile Madras Presidency. Subsequently,
the Government of India, vide its Letter ~o. 38/4/62-SR(R), [Exh. C
2] sent a reply to the Government of brissa after taking into
account the contents of the letter sent by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, the relevant extracts of which are as follows:

    "The letter shows that the area claimed by the Orissa D
    Government being well within the adjoining state could not
    have been intended to form part of Orissa and that the
    intention is borne out by the description of external land
    boundaries of Orissa in part II of the First Schedule read
    with para 3 (2) of the Government of India (Constitution of E
    Orissa) Order, 1936. In view of this, the Government of India
    regret their inability to advise· the Andhra Pradesh
    Government to transfer the Borra Muttah area to Orissa."

After examining Section 3 of the Orissa Order along with the
First Schedule to the same and perusing the correspondence       F
exchanged between Government of Orissa, Government of India
and Government of Andhra Pradesh, we find the contentious
issues to be in favour of the defendant.

Re: Issue 5                                                      G
    19. In view of what has been stated by us while answering
Issues 6, 8, 9 and 10, this issue does not need any further
consideration and this issue is accordingly answered in favour
of the defendant.
                                                                 H
    1190     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   Re: Issues 7, 11 and 12

          20. These issues have to be answered on the basis of the
    assertions made in the plaint, written statement as well as the
    rejoinder to the written statement. The defendant has averred
B   that the reference to the Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate as
    mentioned in the First Schedule to the Orissa Order should be
    construed as one to the ancient Zamindari which had been
    included in the Schedule to the Madras lmpartible Estate Act II
    of 1904. The defendant has submitted that the holders of the
C   Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate had made subsequent acquisitions
    of various properties including land and buildings whose
    locations were at some distance from the original Zamindari.
    Some of these subsequent acquisitions were in different
    districts and provinces and therefore it cannot be said with
    certainty that the holder intended to integrate such acquisitions
D   with the original Zamindari. According to the defendant, there
    is reasonable cause to believe that the disputed area was one
    such subsequent acquisition. The disputed area had earlier
    formed an enclave which was surrounded by another Zamindari.
    Proceeding with this reasoning, the defendant has submitted
E   that the Order-in-Council had only intended that the original
    Zamindari of Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate would fall under the
    administrative control of the State of Orissa. The intent of the
    Order-in-Council, as maintained by the defendant at that time,
    was accepted by both the governments, i.e. State of Orissa as
F   well as the erstwhile Presidency of Madras. The defendant has
    further made the case that the plaintiff had never exercised any
    type of jurisdiction over the disputed area and that the available
    records demonstrate that the disputed area had been part of
    a taluk which was in turn.a part of the erstwhile Madras
G   Presidency and therefore, at the time of the enforcement of the
    Constitution, the disputed area did not fall within the territories
    of the State of Orissa as contemplated in Entry 10 of Schedule
    I to the Constitution. Hence, it was urged that when the State
    of Andhra was formed in 1953, the disputed area became part
H   of the same.
       STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                       1191
         PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

       21. On the other hand, the plaintiff in rejoinder has             A
  contended that the disputed area formed part of the Jeypore
  (lmpartible) Estate as contemplated in the Schedule to the
  Madras lmpartible Estate Act (II of 1904). The plaintiff has
  denied that the disputed area was a subsequent acquisition by
  the holder of the said Estate. The plaintiff has also asserted         B
  that it had never considered the disputed area to be under the
  jurisdiction of the Madras Presidency. In support of this
  contention, it was submitted that the disputed area had
  remained under the revenue jurisdiction of the Jeypore
  (lmpartible) Estate till the abolition of the Estate by way of a       c
· State legislation in 1952. The plaintiff has also relied on a report
  compiled by the East India Company in 1784 in which it was
  noted that the disputed area came within the Zamindari and that
  the Zamindar of Jeypore used to collect annual revenue of 25
  rupees from the disputed area. It was further stated that in           0
  1893, the Maharaja of Jeypore had gifted the Borra village to
  the Pujari of Borra. The plaintiff has thus argued that the claims
  of the defendant are contrary to the documents which are in its
  possession and knowledge.

      22. It is of course the refusal of the defendant to concede        E
 the disputed area to the plaintiff which gave rise to the cause
 of action in the present suit. The plaintiff seeks administrative
 control over the disputed area since it alleges that the
 defendant has committed trespass by interfering with the
 administration of the disputed area after 1953 and more                 F
 particularly after 1957. The fact that the disputed area was part
 of the Jeypore (lmpartible) Estate before the notification of the
 Orissa Order has not been contested by the defendant.
 However, the plaintiff has failed to establish that it had governed
 the disputed area prior to the constitution of the State of Andhra      G
 in 1953, especially in light of the fact that the disputed area is
 located at a considerable distance from the inter-state
 boundary. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not
 convince us that the plaintiff had exercised administrative
 jurisdiction over the disputed area, since the same is                  H
    1192    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A surrounded by villages that have undeniably been under the
  administrative control of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In fact,
  the plaintiff has admitted that till the abolition of the ,leypore
  Estate, it was not the State of Orissa but the Zamindari which
  had collected land revenue from the disputed area. A plain
B reading of Part I and II of tfie Orissa Order along with the First
  Schedule to the same, leads us to conclude that the Order-in-
  Council did not intend to include the disputed area within the
  administrative control of the State of Orissa. The three issues
  are answered accordingly.

C   Re: Issues 13 and 14

        23. The aforesaid issues need not be answered in detail
  since we have already resolved that the proceedings in an
  original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution are entirely
D distinguishable from ordinary civil suits. An observation of Y.V.
  Chandrachud J., [As His Lordship then was] in State of
  Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608, may amply
  clarify the position:
            ~·

        "165. In a civil suit the plaintiff has to succeed on the
E
        strength of his own title, not on the weakness of his
        adversary because the defendant may be a rank
        trespasser and yet he can lawfuliy hold on to his
        possession against the whole world except the true owner.
        If the plaintiff is not the true owner, his suit must fail. A
F       proceeding under Article 131 stands in sharp contrast with
        an ordinary civil suit. The competition in such a proceeding
        is between two or more governments - either the one or
        the other possesses the constitutional power to act."

G The issues are answered accordingly.

    Re: Issue 15

        24. After examining the averments and contentions
    advanced on behalf of both the parties, we do not deem it fit
H
      STATE OF ORISSA v. STATE OF ANDHRA                      1193
       PRADESH [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

to grant the declaration sought by the plaintiff. Consequently the     A
prayer of the plaintiff is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed
without any other relief.

     25. The plaintiff has failed to establish before us that it had
exercised administrative control over the disputed area after          B
the creation of Orissa in 1936. The defendant has produced
documents before us which entail that it is the State of Andhra
Pradesh and its predecessor states which have been
exercising the administrative jurisdiction over the disputed
area. The defendant has also demonstrated that all the villages        C
that are part of the Borra Group, lie within the Ananthagiri
Mandal of the present-day Vishakhapatnam District (Exhibits.
E; K/1; Q; R). The villages which comprise the disputed area
are listed below:

      1.    Borra- Getuvalasa
      2.    Ninimamidi
      3.    Pedduru
      4.    Pooluguda
      5.    Bitrabeda                                                  E

      6.    Dekkapuram
      7.    Kuntiyasimidi
      8.    Eguvamamidi valsa
                                                                       F
      9.    Koyitiguda
      10.   Liddangi
      11.   Jeerugedda
      12.   Bisiaguda
                                                                       G
      13.   Bodilibodi

     26. The Orissa Order of 1936 did not intend to allocate
the disputed area to the State of Orissa, even though it had
been acquired by the Zamindar of the Jeypore (lmpartible}
                                                                       H
    1194     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   Estate at a certain stage. After the formation of the province of
    Orissa, the disputed area was part of the Vizagapatam District
    of the erstwhile Madras Presidency and despite the contrary
    claims of the plaintiff, the disputed area was notified as part of
    the Srungavarapukota assembly constituency in the State of
s   Andhra Pradesh. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff could
    not establish that the inhabitants of the disputed area recognize
    Oriya as their first language.

        27. Therefore, in the light of these findings and
C   considerations, we reject the prayer of plaintiff and the suit is
    dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                   Original Suit dismissed.