WANCHOO, C.J.—These are two applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by Raja Harisingh (No. 25) and Thakur Jaswant Singh (No. 33). The points raised in the two applications are exactly the same, and we propose, therefore, to decided them by one judgment.

2. The case of the applicants is that they are jagirdars of certain villages in Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur. Settlement operations were going on in that Tehsil for sometime past, and, on the 31st August, 1950, a notification was issued as provided by sec. 81 (1) (d) of the Marwar Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Land Revenue Act) inviting objections to the rents published therein within one month. On the publication of this notification, the applicants raised a number of objections to the rent-rates fixed, and said inter alia that the general principles governing settlement were not followed in fixing the rates, and in particular the provisions of the Land Revenue Act had not been complied with both as to the manner of the publication of the rates and to the method of arriving at them. It was also objected that the Marwar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and the Land Revenue Act were ultra vires. A date was then fixed for hearing of these objections, and the Assistant Commissioner heard them. It was pressed before him that it was impossible to submit proper objections in view of the fact that the report, on which the rent-rates were based, had not been published, and the applicants were not being allowed to inspect the settlement records. No orders disposing of the objections were communicated to the applicants; but, on the 25th October, 1951, the applicants were informed that the rent-rates had been approved by the Board of Revenue and the approval of the Government was being awaited. On the 25th of November, 1951, the applicants were informed that the Government had sanctioned the rent-rates, and Parchas would be distributed to the tenants accordingly. The applicants then made representations to the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Minister, and the distribution of Parchas was stayed from time to time. Eventually, on the 14th of March, 1952, the applicants were informed that distribution of Parchas would begin soon. In April, 1952, the applicants were informed that the cash rents fixed would take effect from Kharif Svt. 2008, i. e. July, 1951. Consequently the present applications were filed on or about the 25th April, 1952, praying that an appropriate writ, order, or direction be issued declaring the Land Revenue Act and the Tenancy Act ultra vires of the powers of the then Government of Jodhpur, and prohibiting the State from enforcing the rent-rates fixed in contravention of the law.

3. A large number of grounds were taken in support of the applications, and we think it unnecessary to set them out one. Some of them were not pressed before us in arguments, and such of them as were pressed will appear from our decision on those grounds in the course of this judgment, and where we do not deal with any ground appearing in the applications, it will be because it was given up. But the main points urged were four and they are these:—

(1) That the then Government of Jodhpur had no legal authority to enact any law after the 30th March, 1949, when the Rajpramukh assumed office under the Covenant.

(2) That even if the two impugned Acts could be enacted by the then Government of Jodhpur, they have now become invalid under Art. 14 of the Constitution in view of the discriminatory provisions which they contain;

(3) That the impugned Acts are invalid in view of Art. 19 (1) (f) as they impose unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the applicants to acquire, hold and dispose of property;

(4) That the fixing of rent-rates under the Land Revenue Act was quasi judicial proceeding, and in as much as the procedure prescribed under the Act and principles ojf natural justice were not followed, the rent rates fixed should be set as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document