Judgment

VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.: These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution impugning the validity of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act No. VI of 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The history of this legislation may be briefly stated. On 20-81949 the Government of India appointed a Committee presided over by Sri C. S. Venkatachar to examine and report on the jagirdari and land tenures in Rajputana and Madhya Bharat, the object avowedly being to effect land reforms so as to establish direct relationship between the State and the tillers of the soil and to eliminate all intermediaries between them. By its report dated 18-12-1949 the Committee recommended inter alia the resumption of jagirs and payment of rehabilitation grants in certain cases. (Vide report, page 62).

The question of legislation on the subject was taken up by the Government of Rajasthan in 1951, and eventually a Bill called the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Bill was prepared, and on 31-12-1951 it was approved by the Rajpramukh and reserved for the consideration of the President. On 21-1-1952 the President withheld his assent from the Bill, and in communicating this decision, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India informed the Rajasthan Government that if certain amendments were made in the Bill as presented and a fresh Bill submitted, the President would be willing to reconsider the matter. In accordance with these suggestions, a fresh Bill was prepared in the Ministerial Department incorporating certain amendments, and it was approved by the Rajpramukh on 8-2-1952, and reserved for the consideration of the President, who gave his assent to it on 13-2-1952.

By notification issued on 16-2-1952 the Act came into force on 18-2-1952. Section 21(l) of the Act provides that :

"As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the Government may by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, appoint a date for the resumption of any class of jagir lands and different dates may be appointed for different classes of jagir land."

Acting under this provision, the State of Rajasthan issued notifications resuming the jagirs specified therein, whereupon petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed by the persons aggrieved challenging the validity of the Act. These petitions were heard by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which held overruling the contentions of the petitioners, that the Act was valid. (Vide Amarsingh v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1954 Raj 291 (FB) (A)).

2. The present applications have been filed under Article 32 impugning the Act on the following grounds.

I. The Rajpramukh had no competence to enact law, and the Act in question is therefore not a valid piece of legislation.

II. The Bill was not prepared by the Rajpramukh as required by Article 212-A (2), and therefore the law was not validly enacted.

III. Resumption is not one of the topics of legislation enumerated either in the State List or in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and the Act is therefore ultra vires the powers of the State.

IV. The Act does not provide for adequate compensation; nor is them any public Purpose involved it, and so it contravenes Article 31(2). It is discriminatory, and therefore contravenes Article 14. And the legislation is not saved by Article 31-A, because the lands resumed are neither estates nor jagiras nor grants similar to jagirs, inams or muafi. This contention is special to some of the petitioners, and has reference to the specific properties held by them.

V. The Properties sought to be resumed are not jagirs as defined in the Act, and the notification under Section 21 in so far as they relate to them are illegal. This again is a special contention urged in some of the petitions.

3. These contentions will now be considered seriatim .

4. I. On the first question as to the competence at the Rajpramukh to enact the law, it is necessary to notice the events whi