1. Challenge to the resumption of jagirs under the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957, concerning whether specific land revenue assignments qualify as jagirs. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th February 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.
Petitions Nos. 82 of 60 and 148, 168 to 174 and 357 to 361 of 1961.
Amarsarjit Singh etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab (in all the Petns.), Respondent.
with
Civil Appeals Nos. 453 to 474 of 1961.
Umrao Singh etc. Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab (in all the Appeals) Respondent.
(1) Satinder Singh and (2) Raghvinder Singh and others, Interveners.
and
Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1962.
Amarjit Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Petns. Nos. 82 of 1960 and 148, 168 to 174 and 357 to 361 of 1961 with Civil Appeals Nos. 453 to 474 of 1961 and Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Petitioner (in petition No. 82 of 60) and Appellant (in C. A. No. 50 of 62). Mr. I. N. Shroff Advocate for Petitioners (In Petn. No. 148 of 61) and Appellants (In C. As. Nos. 457 to 474 of 61). M/s. Hardev Singh and Y. Kumar, Advocates, for Petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 168 to 174 & 357 to 361 of 61). Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General, of India & Mr. K. L. Gosain, Senior Advocate (M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar, Lakshmi Chand and I. N. Shroff, Advocates with them), for Appellants (In C.As. Nos. 453 and 456 of 61). Mr. K. L. Gosain, Senior Advocate 1307 (M/s. B. R. L. lyengar, Lakshmi Chand and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (In C. A. No. 454 of 61). M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar, Lakshmi Chand and I. N. Shroff Advocates, for Appellants (In C. A. No. 455 of 61). Mr. S. M. Sikri, Advocate General, for State of Punjab and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (Mr. P. D. Menon Advocate with them), for Respondents (In ill petitions and Civil Appeals. Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Intervener No. 1 Mr. K. L. Mehta, Advocate for intervener No. 2.
Important Points
A person cannot be simultaneously a sovereign and a subject. Once sovereign powers are divested, any continued right to land revenue is treated as an implied grant. State legislatures have the competence to resume such jagirs under laws relating to land and land revenue.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Land Tenure and Resumption
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.138, Art.245, Sch.7 List.2 Entry.45, Art.226, Art.136, Sch.7 List.2 Entry.18
PUNJAB RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS ACT: S.3, S.2(5)
PUNJAB RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS ACT: S.3, S.2(5)
Headnote
(A) Resumption of Jagirs Act - Sections 2(1), 2(5) and 3 - Constitution - Article 32 and 226 - Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 18 and 45 - Resumption of jagirs - Definition of jagir and State Government - Whether holdings originally held by sovereigns who later became subjects constitute jagirs under an implied grant - Held, a person cannot be both a sovereign and a subject; once sovereign powers are divested, the right to receive land revenue is based on an implied grant. (Paras 10, 13)
(B) Act of State - Acquisition of sovereignty - Not limited to conquest; can be achieved by cession, treaty, or other means. (Para 12)
(C) Legislative Competence - State Legislature's power to legislate on land and land revenue under List II - Amendment to include predecessor governments in the definition of State Government is intra vires and not colourable legislation. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Holders of certain jagirs challenged the validity of an Act resuming such jagirs. They contended that their holdings were not "jagirs" as defined in the Act because they were originally independent sovereigns and there was no express grant of land revenue by the State. They further argued that the predecessor government's actions did not constitute a grant and that the State lacked the competence to resume grants made by a predecessor government.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the holders had been stripped of all sovereign powers and reduced to the status of ordinary subjects. Consequently, the continued payment of land revenue to them constituted an implied grant. The definition of "State Government" in the Act, including predecessor governments, is valid and retrospective. The legislation falls within the State's competence under entries relating to land and land revenue.
Issues: Whether the holdings in question fell within the definition of "jagir" as an assignment of land revenue; whether such assignment was made by the "State Government"; and whether the amendment expanding the definition of "State Government" was ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi: The law does not recognize an intermediate status between a sovereign and a subject. Once a person acknowledges the sovereignty of another and is divested of governmental functions, any remaining right to revenue is an implied grant. Sovereignty can be acquired by means other than conquest. Legislation regarding the resumption of jagirs is a matter of land and land revenue, falling within the legislative competence of the State.
Result: Petitions and appeals dismissed.
(B) Act of State - Acquisition of sovereignty - Not limited to conquest; can be achieved by cession, treaty, or other means. (Para 12)
(C) Legislative Competence - State Legislature's power to legislate on land and land revenue under List II - Amendment to include predecessor governments in the definition of State Government is intra vires and not colourable legislation. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Holders of certain jagirs challenged the validity of an Act resuming such jagirs. They contended that their holdings were not "jagirs" as defined in the Act because they were originally independent sovereigns and there was no express grant of land revenue by the State. They further argued that the predecessor government's actions did not constitute a grant and that the State lacked the competence to resume grants made by a predecessor government.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the holders had been stripped of all sovereign powers and reduced to the status of ordinary subjects. Consequently, the continued payment of land revenue to them constituted an implied grant. The definition of "State Government" in the Act, including predecessor governments, is valid and retrospective. The legislation falls within the State's competence under entries relating to land and land revenue.
Issues: Whether the holdings in question fell within the definition of "jagir" as an assignment of land revenue; whether such assignment was made by the "State Government"; and whether the amendment expanding the definition of "State Government" was ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi: The law does not recognize an intermediate status between a sovereign and a subject. Once a person acknowledges the sovereignty of another and is divested of governmental functions, any remaining right to revenue is an implied grant. Sovereignty can be acquired by means other than conquest. Legislation regarding the resumption of jagirs is a matter of land and land revenue, falling within the legislative competence of the State.
Result: Petitions and appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
ACHHRU RAM, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, HARDEV SINGH, I.M.SHROFF, I.N.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, K.I.GOSAIN, K.L.GOSAI, K.L.Mehta, LAKSHMI CHAND TYAGI, LAKSHMI CHAND TYAGI TYAGI, M.C.SETALVAD, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, O.C.MATHUR, P.D.MENON, Ravindra Narayan, S.M.Sikri, Y.Kumar
ACHHRU RAM, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, HARDEV SINGH, I.M.SHROFF, I.N.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, K.I.GOSAIN, K.L.GOSAI, K.L.Mehta, LAKSHMI CHAND TYAGI, LAKSHMI CHAND TYAGI TYAGI, M.C.SETALVAD, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, O.C.MATHUR, P.D.MENON, Ravindra Narayan, S.M.Sikri, Y.Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Contention that the holdings were originally sovereign states rather than grants of land revenue, or that any such grant was not made by the State Government. (Para 2 )
3. Analysis of the transition from sovereign rulers to subjects, concluding that the loss of governmental powers converted revenue rights into implied grants from the State. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. A person cannot be simultaneously sovereign and subject; once sovereign powers are lost, any continuing right to land revenue constitutes an implied grant by the State. (Para 13 )
5. Writ petitions and civil appeals dismissed. (Para 23 )
6. Can a state acquire sovereignty over a territory through means other than conquest?
Yes, sovereignty can be acquired by cession, treaty, occupation of unoccupied territory, or any other mode that establishes sovereign power over the area. (Para 12 )
7. Can a person hold a dual status as both a sovereign and a subject?
No, the law does not recognize an intermediate status; a person must be either a sovereign or a subject. If sovereign powers are lost, the person becomes a subject. (Para 13 )
8. When can a grant of land revenue be implied in the absence of an express grant?
A grant may be implied when former rulers are reduced to the status of subjects but continue to receive land revenue from the State. (Para 10 , 13 )
9. Does the State Legislature have the competence to enact laws for the resumption of jagirs?
Yes, legislation regarding the resumption of jagirs relates to land and land revenue, falling under Entries 18 and 45 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. (Para 20 )
Judgment
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. : The question that arises for our decision in the above writ petitions and appeals is whether certain jagirs in the State of Punjab known as the "Cis-Sutlej" jagirs are liable to be resumed under the provisions of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957 (Punjab Act, No. 39 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". This Act came into force on November 14, 1957, and the respondent State then proceeded to take action thereunder for resuming the Jagirs. A number of petitions were thereupon filed in the High Court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Act, and of the proceedings taken by the respondent State thereunder on the grounds, firstly, that the Act was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and that its provisions were unconstitutional and void; and, secondly, that even if the Act was intra vires, the jagirs held by the petitioners were not "jagirs" as defined in the Act, and were therefore not liable to be resumed under its provisions. By their Judgment dated May 25, 1959, the learned Judges held that the legislation was within the competence of the State, and that it did not contravene any of the constitutional provisions. They further held that the jagirs held by the petitioners fell within the definition of "jagir" under the Act, and were liable to be resumed thereunder, and that accordingly no writ could be issued against the State for proceeding under the provisions of the Act. By their Order dated January 27, 1960, the learned Judges granted leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 133 (1)(a), and pursuant to the same, Civil Appeals Nos. 453 to 474 of 1961 have been preferred to this Court. Appeal No. 50 of 1962 by special leave is also directed against the Judgment of the Punjab High Court in a Writ Petition under Art. 226. Some of the jagirdars have also filed petitions in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution, impugning the Act and the action of the State thereunder on the same grounds as those raised in the appeals. We have accordingly heard arguments of learned Counsel both in the writ petitions and in the appeals, and this Judgment will govern all of them.
2. Though a number of grounds have been taken in the pleadings, impugning the Act as ultra vires and its Provisions as unconstitutional, in the argument before us, the only contention that was pressed was that the Cis-Sutlej jagirs do not fall within the definition of jagirs contained in the Act and that accordingly the State had no authority to resume them under the provisions of the Act. And this contention is sought to be sustained on two grounds: (i) that there was at no time any grant of the Cis-Sutlej jagirs to their holders, much less any assignment of land revenue to them; and (ii) that even if there was such a grant, it was not one made by or on behalf of the State Government as required by S. 2(1). It is argued that if either of these contentions succeeds, the jagirs in question would fall outside the purview of the Act, and the State would have no right under its provisions to resume them.
3. It will be convenient at this state to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(1) defines "jagir" as follows:
" "Jagir" means-
(a) any assignment of land revenue made by or on behalf of the State Government; or
(b) any estate in land created or affirmed by or on behalf of the State Government carrying with it the right of collecting land revenue or receiving any portion of the land revenue; or
(c) any grant of money made or continued by or on behalf of the State Government which purports to be or is expressed to be payable out of the land re- venue; or
(d) any, grant of money including anything payable on the part of the State Government in respect of any right, privilege, perquisite or office; and
includes any such grant or assignment existing in favour of Cis-Sutlej jagirdars."
"jagirdar is defined in S. 2 (2) as meaning the holder of a jagir. Section 2(5)
