Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1964 Supreme(SC) 12

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd January, 1964.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
1. Rani Ratnaprova Devi (In Petition No 79 of 1963) 2. Raja Sankar Pratap Singh Deo Mahindra Bahadur (In Petn. No 80 of 1963) 3. Pat Rani Saheba of Keonjhar (In Petition No. 140 of 1962) Petitioners
Versus
The State of Orissa and others (in all the Petns.) Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 79 and 80 of 1963 and 140 of 1962.
1. Maharaja Rajinder Narayan Singh Deo
2. Raja Bhanuganga Tribhuben Deb,
3. Maharaja Pratap Keshari Deo,
4. Raja T. M. H. Mahapatra
5. Raja Bir Udit Pratap Shekhar Deo, (In Petn. No 140 of 1962) Interveners.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. Advocates, for Petitioner (In Petns. Nos. 79 and 80 of 1963); Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Ajoy Kumar Gajadhar Mahapatra and A. D. Mathur, Advocates, with him); for Petitioner (In Petn. No. 140 of 62); Mr. S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. S. B. Misra, Government Pleader, Orissa and M/s R. Ganapathi Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates with him), for Respondents (in all the Petns.); Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O. C. Mathur, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co; with him), for Interveners (in Petn. No. 140 of 62).

Advocates:
A.D.MATHUR, AJOY KUMAR, GAJADHAR MAHAPATRA, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, P.L.VOHRA

The Court held that the Orissa Private Lands of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) Act, 1958 did not violate Articles 14 or 31 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
ORISSA PRIVATE LANDS OF RULERS (ASSESSMENT OF RENT) ACT, 1958 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ASSESSMENT OF RENT ON PRIVATE LANDS OF RULERS - VALIDITY - ARTICLES 14 AND 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, private landowners in Orissa, challenged the validity of the Orissa Private Lands of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) Act, 1958 (the Act), which authorized the levy of rent on their lands. They argued that the Act violated Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the validity of the Act, holding that it did not violate Articles 14 or 31 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution by introducing an illegal discrimination between the petitioners' lands and other assessable lands in the State of Orissa? 2. Whether the definition of "Ruler" in the Act was inconsistent with the definition in Article 366(22) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Act violated Article 31 of the Constitution by depriving the petitioners of their property without due process of law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act did not violate Article 14 because the classification of the petitioners' lands as assessable was rational and had a reasonable nexus with the object of the Act, which was to provide for the assessment of rent on private lands of Rulers. 2. The Court held that the definition of "Ruler" in the Act was not inconsistent with the definition in Article 366(22) because the definitions in the Constitution were intended for the purpose of interpreting the articles in the Constitution itself, and the Act did not purport to make any provisions in respect of Rulers as such. 3. The Court held that the Act did not violate Article 31 because it did not deprive the petitioners of their property, but merely authorized the levy of a tax in the form of an assessment on their lands.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the validity of the Act.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: The petitioners in these three petitions have moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution and claimed a declaration that the operative provisions of the Orissa Private Lands of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) and the Rules framed thereunder are unconstitutional and ultra vires. The private lands in the possession and enjoyment of the three respective petitioners have been assessed by the Revenue Officers in conformity with the Rules framed under the Act. The petitioners claim a writ, or direction, or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the said orders of assessment.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1962 is the Patrani Saheba of Keonjhar and is in possession and enjoyment of eight villages, viz., Managalpur Barigan; Nua Rampas; Nilung Ghutru; Mohadijora; Patang and Anara in the district of Keonjhar. These villages were granted to her for maintenance a long time ago and as such, they have been recorded in the village papers as Khoraki Posaki (Maintenance Grant) Lands since the last settlement of 1918. She has held these lands without paying assessment; and her case is that the relevant provisions of the Act which authorise the levy of assessment in respect of her lands are unconstitutional and invalid. In her petition, she refered to the fact that time to time, the Government of the day had refrained from levying any assessment in respect of her lands and thereby recognised her right to hold the said villages on assessment-free basis. The Revenue Officer of Keonjhar levied an assessment in respect of the said villages purporting to act under the Rules framed under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner then preferred appeals to the Board of Revenue against the said assessment orders but these appeals were dismissed. The assessment levied against the petitioner in respect of these lands is of the order of Rs. 9000 and odd and it has to be paid by her from 1938 retrospectively.

3. The petitioner is W. P. No. 79 of 1963 is Smt. Rani Ratan Prova Devi who is the wife of Raja Sankar Pratap Singh Deo Mohindra Bhadur, ex-Ruler of Dhenkanal State in Orissa. At the time when the State of Dhenkanal merged with India, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of lands in facie villages as a proprietor. In respect of these lands, assessment had never been levied; but purporting to give effect to the relevant provisions of the Act, the Revenue Officer, Dhenkanal assessed rent in respect of all the lands which are in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The appeals preferred by the petitioner against the said order of assessment failed; and so, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the Act as well as the validity of the assessment order.

4. The petitioner in W. P. No. 80 of 1963 is the ex-Ruler of Dhenkanal. On the date of merger, he held and was in possession of 89 acres 18 dec and 5 kadis of land in Nizgarh Town as his private lands. These lands were never subjected to the payment of rent and yet the Revenue Officers assessed rent and respect of these lands under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner failed in persuading the Appellant Authority it set aside the order of assessment, and so, has filed the preset writ petition challenging the validity of the Act and the order of assessment. Thus, the facts on which the three petitions claim relief are substantially similar and they have raised common points of law for our decision. That is why the three petitions have been heard together and would be disposed of by a common judgment.

5. The Act which is challenged in the present proceedings was passed by the Orissa Legislature because "it was thought expedient to provide for assessment of rent with respect to the private lands of Rulers in the State of Orissa". It received the assent of the Governor on May 21, 1958 and was published in the State Gazette on June 6, 1958. It coasts of 15 sections and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document