LexAMARSARJIT SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS AND APPEALS)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Ifft Ft6rum 20. 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. AMARSARJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUN.JAR (AND CONNECTED PETITION'S AND APPEALS) (B. P. SINHA, C. J., IC SunnA RAO, N. RAJAOOPA!.A AYYANOAR, J. R. MuonoJ,KAR and T. L. VEXKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ,) Resumption of jaqirs-Gis-Sutkj .fa7irs___:. lagirdars, if wvereigns-Assignment of ret·en1te by Rritislt Corrrnme11t-l1n- plied grant-Legislatii•e conipetence of tn1:u:tn1ent-'l1ltr. l'unjub Ruumption of Jagirs Act, 1957 (Pttnjah 39 .nf J.'Jii7), '"· 2( 1), 2(5)-Gon.•litution of India, Sei:enth Scherlule, Ust II, entrie" 18, 4:i. The Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957, came into force on November 14, 1957, and the State of Punjab pro- ceeded to take action thereunder for resuming the jagirs. The petitioners who were holders of certain jagirs in that State known as the Cis-Sutlej jagirs claimed that they could not be resumed under the pro\'i•ions of the Art because they did not fall within the definition of Jagir contained ins. 2(1) of the Act on the grounds that there was at no time any grant of the Cis-Sutlej jagirs to their holders. much less any assign- ment of land revenue to them, and that even if there was such 11 grant, it was not one made by or on behalf of the State Government as required bys. 2(1) (a) of the Act. The history or the,. jagirs showed that the jagirdars were originally rulers of the territories when they took possession of them by conquest in I i63, hut in course of time after the British came on the scene, they were wadually stripped of all their powers as sovereigns, and in 1852 the British took over the collec- tion of revenue of the jagir lands and out of the collections the jagirdan were paid their share. Subseq tJen t to 1852 there was a course of legislation relating to the jagirs. The ques• tion was v.•hether the assignment of land revenue to the Cis- Sutlej jagirdars was made on the basis of aR implied grant. The petitioners case was that as the Cis-Sutlej Chiefs were never conquered, the payment of lancl revenue to them must be related to their status as ~overeigns and that the collection of the land revenue was made only under an im- plied arrangement with them. Held, that the status of the Ci1-Sutlej jagirclars was only !hat of subjects and that the payment of revenue to them by - - - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 347 the British Government was only on the basis of an implied grant to them. Though the Cis-Sutlej Chief were not. ~onquered .by the British, since the latter were in fact exerc1s1ng sovereign powers over the area it must be held that sovereignty had passed to them otherwise than by conquest. Mfs. Dalmia Dadri Cement 'ao. Ltd. v. The Oommissione; of Income-tax, [1959] S. C. R. 729, Thakur Amar Singji v. State of Rajasthan, [1955] 2 S. C.R. 303 and Vajesingji Jorawar Singji v. Secretary of State, [1924] L.R. 51 I.A. 35 7, relied on. Held, further that the British Government which had made the grant was the «State Government" within the meaning of s. 2(5) of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act 1957, and that the Jagirs in question' were within the defi- nition of "Jagir" in s.2(1) of the Act. Held, also, that the Act was within the legislative com- petence of the State of Punjab under entries 18 and 45 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 0RrGINAL JcrarSDICTION: Petitions Nos. 82 of 1960 and 148, 168 to 174 and 357 to 361of1961. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the. enforcement of Fundamental Itights. WITH Civil Appeals Nos. 453 to 474 of 1961. Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 25, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 428, 303, 398, 402, 459 to 462, 421, 472, 473, 475, 490, 503, 509, 519, 520, 555, 590, 710 and . 712 of 1958. AND Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 25, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 347 of 1958. Achhru Ram and Naunit Lal, for the peti- t!oner (in Petn. No. 82 of 60) and the appella,qt (m C. A. No. 50 of 62). ' • ', ' r 1982 Amat'8af'jit Singh v. . The State of Punjab 1962 AmarsMjil Sin1A v. T/i, St.,, of Punjal> 348 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. l. N. Shroff, for tho pctition0rs (in Petn. No. 148 of 61) and the appellants (in C. As. Nos. 457 to 474. of !ii). Har(lei: SiW]h and Y. Knmar for the peti- tioners (in Petm. Nos. 168 to 174 a~d 357 to 361 of6l). C. K. Dap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.