Back
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.
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 instru
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
