Back
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Bapna & Ranawat, JJ.
Ramdeo - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Application No. 254 of 1953
Decided On : September 29, 1954
Raj Pramukhs power to legislate conferred upon by him the Covenant entered into by the Rulers in 1949 was preserved by Art. 385 of the Constitution only for such period as the legislature of the State had not been duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the provision of the Constitution. That body had been constituted and had met prior to 20th of June, 1953, and, therefore, the legislative powers under Art. 385 had came to an end. The Raj Pramukh having no legislative power under Art. 385 of the Constitution, the Notification extending the duration of Ordinance No. IX of 1949 for one year with effect from 21/06/1953, under colour of powers delegated to him was invalid, as being legislation under a delegated authority. (Para 6)
The aforesaid finding as to the invalidity of the second extension is, however, not sufficient to dispose of the case. The Raj Pramukh in exercise of his powers under Art. 213 of the Constitution promulgated an Ordinance No. III of 1954 on the 15th of February, 1954, while the present petition was pending. The State Legislature soon after passed the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act, 1954 (Act No.10 of 1954), which received the assent of the Raj Pramukh on 16/04/1954. The effect of the Ordinance and the Act was that the duration of the Ordinance No. IX of 1949 became 7 years from 21st of June,l949.Counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of Ordinance No III of 1954 and Act No. 10 of 1954 on the ground that Ordinance No. IX of 1949 had expired on the 21st of June, 1951, and even if the first extension for two years from 21/06/1951, be held to be valid as held by this Court it came to an end on the 21st of June, 1953. The extension for another year by notification of 20/06/1953, being invalid, the Ordinance expired, at any rate, on the 21st of June, 1953 or Act No.10 of 1954, which were promulgated on 15/02/1954, and 17/04/1954, respectively. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Held that Ordinance No. III of 1949 was declared to have come into force on the 21st day of June, 1949, and Act No. X of 1954 has a similar provision. As retrospective legislation is permissible, this Ordinance as also the Act came into force on 21/06/1949. On that day the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance was in force, and not dead, and the amendment made by sec. 2 of the Ordinance or sec. 2 of the Act was engrafted upon it on June, 1949. The R.P.T.O. 1919 by virtue of Act X of 1954 validly declared the duration of Ordinance No. IX of 1949 to be for 7 years from 21/06/1949. (Paras 23 and 24)
2. Respondent No. 3 Chhaju, made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror, on 11th June, 1952, on the allegations that he was a cultivator of the fourth share in his plots of land measuring in all 16 bighas and 11 biswas situated at village Rampur, but had been wrongfully dispossessed by Ram Deo and Lakhmi Singh on 1st June, 1952. He claimed to be put in possession of the land falling to his share under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror, dismissed the petition, and Chhaju filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue on 12th March, 1953. The Board, after entertaining the application, fixed 28th August, 1953, for hearing. The present petition has been made for prohibiting the Board of Revenue to proceed with the application on the ground that the operation of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX of 1949) had come to an end, and the Revenue Board had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter of the revision.
3. The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (No. IX of 1949) (hereinafter called R.T.O. 1949), was promulgated by the Rajpramukh on 21st June, 1949, and sub-sec. (3) of section 1 thereof provided that:—
"It shall come into force at once and shall remain in force for a period of two years unless this period is further extended by the Rajpramukh by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette."
On 14th June, 1951, the Rajpramukh issued a notification No, F. 1 (2) Rev. /50 dated 14th June, 1951, as follows ;—
"In pursuance of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (No. IX of 1949), R.H. the Rajpramukh is pleased to extend the period for which the said Ordinance shall remain in force for a further term of two years with effect from the 21st of June, 1951 "
The validity of this extension was challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner, but the point is covered by two decisions of this Court, viz , Sukhlal vs. Revenue Board Rajasthan (1) and Sadaria vs. The Rajasthan Board of Revenue (2) (Since reported as 1955 R. L. W. 355). It was said In these case that the Rajpramukh extension, which was equivalent to legislation, had been properly made. We agree with the view taken in these cases and no new ground was urged in support of the contention that the said extension was invalid.
4. The period of extension by the aforesaid notification, however, expired on 21st June, 1953, and on 20th June, 1953, the Rajpramukh issued a notification No F. 1 (4) Rev. l/B/52 to the following effect:—
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. 3 of sec. 1 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (No IX of 1949), H. H. the Rajpramukh is pleased further to extend the period for which the said Ordinance shall remain in force for a further term of one year with effect from 21st day of June 1953."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this second extension was invalid. A two-fold argument was advanced in this connection. The Notification, on the face of it, purports to have been issued under a delegated power. By that date the State Legislature had been constituted, and extension of law, which amounted to a fresh legislation, could not have been made under a delegated power. Further, Sec. 1, sub-sec.(3) R. P. T. O. 1949 did not purport to delegate any power to the Rajpramukh. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sadaria vs. The Rajasthan Board of Revenue (2), referred to above.
6. It may be pointed out that Raj-pramukhs power to legislate conferred upon him by the Covenant entered into by the Rulers in 1949 was preserved by Art. 335 of the Constitution only for such period as the Legislature of the State had not been duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the provision of the Constitution. That body had been constituted and had met prior to 20th of June
SupremeToday
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
