1. Challenge to the validity of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955, concerning the vesting of estates in the State Government. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 152
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th November 1958
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO and K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
1. Raghubir Singh and Ors. (In Petn. No. 280 of 55 ); 2. Gajadhar Gajinder Singh ( In Petn. No. 231 of 55); 3. Shiv Singh (In Petn. No. 232 of 55); 4. Raghbir Singh (in Petn. No. 233 of 55); 5. Chander Sen Singh (In Petn. No. 234 of 55; 6. Vijay Bahadur Singh (In Petn. No. 235 of 55). 7. Sawai Singh (In Petn. No. 236 of 55); 8. Girdhar Singh (In Petn. No. 237 of 55); 9. Fatehpal Singh (In Petn. No. 238 of 55); 10. Rao Ganpati Singh (In Petn. No. 239 of 55) 11. Rup Singhji, (In Petn. No. 241 of 55); 12. Hanumandasji (In Petn. No. 249 of 55); 13. Ugra Sen (In Petn. No. 250 of 55). 14. Amar Singhji (In Petn. No. 251 of 55). 15. Anand Behari Singh (In Petn. No. 256 of 55) : 16. Madho Singh (In Petn. No. 257 of 55 ); 17. Bajjra Nath Sen (In Petn. No. 290 of 55);18. Takhat Singh (In Petn. No. 303 of 55); 19. Ranvir Singh (In Petn. No. 306 of 55); 20. Raghuraj Singh (In Petn. No. 307 of 55); 21. Rani Sh. Jodhiji (In Petn. No. 308 of 55); 22. Daviraj Singh (In Petn. No. 309 of 55); 23. Prithaviraj Singh (In Petn. No. 310 of 55); 24. Ganraj Singh (In Petn. No. 311 of 55); 25. Bhupendra Singh (In Petn. No. 312 of 55); 26. Mehendra Singh (In Petn. No. 313 of 55); 27. Deaoraj Singh (In Petn. No. 314 of 55); 28. Kuverani Rajwetji (In Petn. No. 315 of 55); 29. Udai Singh (In Petn. No. 316 of 55), 30. Umaid Singh (In Petn. No. 317 of 55); 31. (In Petn. No. 318 of 55); 32. Kajor Singh, (In Petn. No. 319 of 55); 33. Samarath Singh (In Petn. No. 320 of 55); 34. Bhairon Singh (In Petn No. 321 of 55 ); 35. Onkar Singh (In Petn. No 322 of 55). 36. Yogiraj Singh (In Petn. No. 323 of 55 ); 37. Partap Singh (In Petn. No. 324 of 55); 38. Jorawar Singh (In Petn. No. 325 of 55); 39. Chandra Singh (In Petn. No. 326 of 55); 40. Kishan Singh (In Petn. No. 327 of 55); 41. Sidh Nath (In Petn. No. 328 of 55); 42. Bajrang Singh (In Petn. No. 329 of 55); 43. Baghelijee (In Petn. No. 330 of 55). 44. Choondawatji (In Petn. No. 331 of 55); 45. Kanwarani Sahiba Narookiji (In. Petn. No. 332 of 55); 46. Ranjit Singh (In Petn. No. 333 of 55); 47. Yajya Narain Singh (In Petn. No. 334 of 55); 48. Ravindra Mahaveer Singh (In Petn. No. 335 of 55); 49. Raghu Nath Singh (In Petn. No. 336 of 55); 50. K. Deoraj Singh (In Petn. No. 337 of 55); 51. Ram Singh (In Petn. No. 338 of 55); 52. Madan Singh (In Petn. No. 339 of 55); 53. Fateh Singh (In Petn. No. 340 of 55); 54. Shyam Swarup (In Petn. No. 341 of 55); 55. Harendra Singh (In Petn. No. 342 of 55);. 476 56. Virendra Singh (In Petn. No. 343 of 55); 57. Surendra Singh (In Petn. No. 344 of 55); 58. Kusum Kumari (In Petn. No. 345 of 55 ); 59. Jarawar Singh (In Petn. No. 346 of 55); 60. Shobag Singh (In Petn. No. 347 of 55); 61. Hari Singh (In Petn. No. 348 of 55); 62. Kr. Umed Singh (In Petn. No. 349 of 55); 63. Pratap Singh (In Petn. No. 351 of 55 ); 64. Raghubir Singh ( In Petn. No. 352 of 55); 65. Laxman Singh and Anr. ( In Petn. No. 355 of 55 ); 66. Bijai Singh (In Petn. No. 356 of 55); 67. Khangarotji (In Petn. No. 357 of 55); 68. Surya Nand (In Petn. No. 33 of 56) and 69. Ganpat Singh and Ors. (In Petn. No. 36 of 56), Petitioners
Versus
The State of Ajmer (Now Rajasthan) and others, Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 230-239, 241, 249-251, 256, 257, 290, 303, 306-349, 351, 352, 355-357 of 1955 and Nos. 33 and 36 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners in Petns. Nos. 239, 241 & 251 of 1955; Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Petitioners in Petns. Nos. 249 & 250 of 1955; M/s. B. D. Sharma & K. L. Mehta, Advocates, for Petitioners in Petns. Nos. 290, 303, 306-349, 351, 355-357 of 1955 and 36 of 1956; Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate, for Petitioner in Petn. No. 33/56; Mr. K. L. Mehta, Advocate, for Petitioner in Petn. No. 352/55; Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate for Petitioners in Petns. Nos. 230-238, 256-257/55; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India (M/s. M. N. Kaul & T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him) for Respondents.
Advocates:
ACHHRU RAM, B.D.SHARMA, H.N.SANYAL, I.M.SHROFF, K.L.Mehta, M.N.Kaul, NAUNIT LAL, T.M.SEN
ACHHRU RAM, B.D.SHARMA, H.N.SANYAL, I.M.SHROFF, K.L.Mehta, M.N.Kaul, NAUNIT LAL, T.M.SEN
Provisions ancillary to the abolition of intermediaries are protected under Article 31-A(1)(a). Legislative competence for property acquisition is determined by the purpose of the acquisition, not the entity in whom the title vests. Jagirdars, as estate holders, are intermediaries subject to land resumption.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 31-A(1)(a) and 19(1)(f) - Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act - Sections 8 and 38 - Validity of provisions for cancellation of leases and fixing maximum rent - Power to cancel leases granted after a specific date, if not made in the normal course of management, is ancillary to the main object of the Act and is protected under Article 31-A(1)(a). Retrospective legislation is permissible in appropriate cases. (Para 4) Fixing the maximum rent to discourage rack-renting and encourage self-cultivation is an ancillary provision necessary for carrying out the objects of the Act and is thus protected under Article 31-A(1)(a). (Para 5)
(B) Legislative Competence - Seventh Schedule - List I Entry 33 and List II Entry 36 - Acquisition of property - The competence of a State Legislature to enact laws for the acquisition of property is determined by the purpose of the acquisition, not by the entity in whom the title vests after acquisition. If the property is acquired for the purposes of the State, the law falls within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry 36 of List II. (Paras 8-9)
(C) Land Tenure - Definition of Intermediary and Jagirdar - A holder of an estate, including a jagirdar, is an intermediary. The distinction between a jagirdar as an assignee of land revenue and as a land-owner is unfounded where the grant confers rights in the estate. Such estates are liable to vest in the State Government. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Various land-owners challenged the validity of an Act providing for the vesting of estates held by intermediaries in the State Government. The petitioners impugned the provisions allowing the cancellation of certain leases and the capping of rent, questioned the legislative competence of the State assembly to pass the Act, and contended that jagirdars should not be treated as intermediaries whose interests are acquired under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the provisions for cancelling leases and capping rent were ancillary to the main objective of abolishing intermediaries and were protected under Article 31-A. It ruled that the State Legislature was competent to enact the law as the acquisition was for the purpose of the State, regardless of where the title vested. It further determined that jagirdars are intermediaries and holders of estates, making their interests liable to resumption.
Issues: Whether the provisions for retrospective cancellation of leases and rent capping were valid; whether the State Legislature had the competence to enact the acquisition law; and whether jagirdars fall within the definition of intermediaries under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions ancillary to the main object of a land reform Act are protected under Article 31-A(1)(a). Legislative competence for property acquisition is determined by the purpose of the acquisition rather than the ultimate vesting of the title. A jagirdar, as a holder of an estate, is an intermediary regardless of the remission of land revenue.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of lease cancellation and rent limits; legislative competence of the State to acquire property; and whether jagirdars are intermediaries subject to the Act. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 10 )
3. Ancillary provisions for lease cancellation and rent limits subserve land reform; legislative competence for acquisition is determined by the purpose of acquisition, not the vesting of title. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Ancillary provisions furthering the object of land acquisition are protected under Article 31A; legislative competence for acquisition is determined by the purpose of acquisition. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 )
5. Petitions dismissed. (Para 11 )
6. Are ancillary provisions to a land reform Act protected under Article 31A of the Constitution?
Yes, provisions that are ancillary in character and enacted to carry out the objects of the Act more effectively, such as cancelling fraudulent leases or limiting rent to encourage self-cultivation, are protected under Article 31A(1)(a). (Para 4 )
7. Does the vesting of acquired property in the Union affect the State's legislative competence to enact acquisition laws?
No. Legislative competence under Entry 36 of List II is determined by whether the property is acquired for purposes other than those of the Union, regardless of where the title eventually vests. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. Does the status of a jagirdar as a revenue assignee exclude them from being considered an intermediary for land resumption?
No. A jagirdar is a holder of an estate and an intermediary; the distinction between being a revenue assignee and a land-owner is unfounded when the grant designates the jagir as an estate. (Para 10 )
Judgement
K. N. WANCHOO, J. : These sixty-nine petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution by various land-owners in the former State of Ajmer attack the validity of the AJMER ABOLITION OF INTERMEDIARIES AND LAND REFORMS ACT , (Ajmer III of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act). The petitions disclose a large number of grounds on which the validity of the Act is impugned; but learned counsel, Mr. Achhru Ram and Mr. B. D. Sharma, appearing for various petitioners, have confined their arguments only to certain grounds raised in the petitions. We propose, therefore, to consider only the grounds urged before us.
2. The Act was passed by the Ajmer Legislative Assembly and received the assent of the President on 29-5-1955. Section 4 of the Act provided for vesting of all estates held by intermediaries, as defined in the Act, in the State Government from a date to be notified. The Act came into force on 23-6-1955, and 1-8-1952, was notified as the date on which the estates held by intermediaries would vest in the State Government. The present petitions followed on the fixing of this date.
3. It is not disputed that the Act is protected under Art. 31-A (1) (a) of the Constitution inasmuch as it is a piece of legislation for acquisition by the State of any estate or at any rights therein. The argument is that in spite of this protection, either the whole Act or certain provisions of it are invalid, for reasons urged by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Achhru Ram attacks only Ss. 8 and 38 of the Act. Mr. Sharma attacks the competency of the Ajmer Legislature to pass the Act and also urges that in any case it does not apply to the case of jagirdars, one of whom is a petitioner before us in petition No. 33 of 1956. These four are the only grounds that have been urged before us, and we shall deal with them seriatim.
Re: S. 8.
4. Section 8 is in these terms-
"Where an intermediary has on or after the 1-6-1950,
(a) granted a lease of any land in the estate or any part thereof for any non-agricultural purposes other than mining for a period of three years or more; or
(b) granted a lease or entered into a contract relating to any forest, fishery or quarry in his estate for a period of three years or more; or
(c) granted a lease for the cultivation of any area of bir or pasture or waste land;
and the Collector is satisfied that such lease or contract was not made or entered into in the normal course of management but in anticipation of legislation for the Abolition of Intermediaries, the Collector may, subject to any rules made under this Act, by order in writing, cancel the lease or the contract as the case may be.
It provides for cancellation of certain leases granted on or after 1st June 1950, where the lease is for a period of three years or more with respect to matters dealt with in cls. (a) and (b) and where the lease is for any period in respect of matters dealt with in cl. (c). The Collector has been given the power to cancel such leases if they are not made in the normal course of management but in anticipation of legislation for abolition of intermediaries. The argument is that there can be no retrospective cancellation of leases granted at a time when the land-owner had a right to dispose of his property as he liked under Art.19 (1) (f) and there was no restriction on such right. It is said that in certain contingencies the cancellation of a lease might expose the land-owner to the risk of paying compensation to the lessee, particularly in cases where the land-owner might have realised the entire lease-money in one lump sum for a lease of more than three years duration. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. The Legislature was certainly competent, under entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution relating to Land, to make this provision. It cannot be disputed that the legislature has power in appropriate cases to pass even retrospective legislation. Provisions for cancellation of i
