Back
Rajasthan High Court
Wanchoo, CJ. and Bapna, J.
R.S. Manoharsinghji - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1951
Decided On : December 11, 1951
Normally, a person who is deprived of his property, has a right to file a suit and should go to the Civil Court and should not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. But where, the only point which would arise for decision, if such a suit were to be filed, relates to the validity or otherwise of the impugned law which, the Civil Court would have to refer to the High Court under the proviso to the amended sec. 113 of the C.P.C., the High Court would not deem it proper to dismiss the petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy alone.
Under Ordinances Nos. 10 and 15 of 1949, the former State of Rajasthan took over the right to collect the revenue from the Jagir-dars and under a set of orders, provisionally, allowed a certain percentage of the amount actually collected, minus certain charges, to be paid to the Jagirdars. All other work respecting the Jagirs was left with the Jagirdars.
Held that the mere taking over the collection of revenue did not amount to taking possession within the meaning of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution of India, nor did it amount to an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right, to hold and acquire property, under Art. 19 (f) (5). But sec. 8 A of the Ordinance of 1948 which was introduced in the Ordinance by Ordinance No. 10 of 1949 and the amendment of this section by sec. 3 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1949 have now become void under Art. 13 (1) of the Constitution of India read with Art. 14, as these create inequality before the law as between Jagirdars of one portion of the State and another portion of the State, there being no justification for such distinction.
Mere taking away of the power to collect revenue from jagirdars does not amount: to taking possession within the meaning of Art. 31 (2) nor can it be said to be an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right, to hold and acquire property, under Art. 19(f)(5).
If there is some reasonable basis for a classification based on any reasonable differentiation, it is permissible for a State to have different laws in different parts of it. But the basis must be reasonable and the law must not discriminate purely arbitrarily.
It is possible to have a classification based on geographical distribution but such distribution must be based on the particular needs of that geographical area which are distinct and real as compared to needs of the remaining geographical area.
2. The case of the applicant is that he is the owner of the Jagir of Bedla which is situate in the former State of Mewar, now included in the State of Rajasthan. The former State of Mewar was integrated in 1948 to form what was known as the former United State of Rajasthan. There was a further integration in April and May 1949 by which the former United State of Rajasthan was amalgamated with the former State of Bikaner, Jaipur, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur and the former Union of Matsya to form the present United State of Rajasthan. The former State of Rajasthan passed three Ordinances : No. XXVII of 1948, No. X and No. XV of 1949 in connection with the Jagirs there. By virtue of the powers under these Ordinances, the former State of Rajasthan assumed management of the Jagirs including the Jagir of Bedla. The applicant alleged that these three Ordinances were ultra vires of the Constitution of Mewar which was continued by the Administration Ordinance No. 1 of 1948 of the former United State of Rajasthan. It is further contended that these Ordinances, in any case, became void under Art. 13(1) of the Constitution of India read with Arts. 14 and 31. After the present State of Rajasthan came into existence finally in May 1949, these Ordinances remained in force in a part of the area of the present State with the result that while the management of the Jagirs was taken by the State in that area, the Jagirs in the rest of Rajasthan remained with the Jagirdars. Consequently, there was discrimination as between Jagirdars and Jagirdars and the Jagirdars of the area covered by the former State of Rajasthan were denied equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws in view of the continuance of these Ordinances. Therefore, the Ordinances became void on the coming into force of the Constitution of India on the 26th of January, 1950.
3. It was also alleged that the State had taken possession of the property of the applicant by virtue of the provisions of these Ordinances and no compensation was provided for the taking of such possession and, therefore, these Ordinances were ultra vires and void.
4. The application was opposed on behalf of the State. It was denied that the applicant was the owner of the Jagir though it was admitted that he was the holder of it. The Jagir was a State grant and was held at the pleasure of the ruler. Such a Jagir automatically reverted to the ruler on the death of the holder and was re-granted to the successor after the ruler had recognised the succession The rights of the holder of the Jagir were not heritable or transferable nor could the Jagir be partitioned amongst the lawful heirs of the Jagirdars. There could be no adoption also by the Jagirdar without the approval of the ruler and it was always open to the State to resume the grant or vary the terms on which it was held and thus the Jagirdar had no proprietary right in the Jagir. Therefore, even if it be held that the State took possession of the Jagir of the applicant, he is not entitled to compensation under Art. 31 and, therefore, the Ordinances, on the basis of which the State acted, were not void under Art. 13 (1) read with Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution of India.
5. In the alternative, it is urged that with the merger of the State of Mewar in the former United State of Rajasthan and thereafter in the present State of Rajasthan, there was change of sovereignty twice and even if the applicant had any rights in pursuance of any grant by the Ruler of Mewar, that was not binding against the successor States. In any case, the impugned Ordinances did not deprive the Jagirdars of their property and had merely the effect of transferring the management of Jagirs to the Government and,
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
