RANI RATNA PROVA DEVI RANI SAHEBA OF DHENKENAL versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 23-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
301 
derable force. 
At any rate we do not think that there are 
lll1Y substantial grounds upon which we can look at these 
transact10ns in a different way. If these documents go 
away, as also Exs. Al and A2, we are left with only Exs. 
A3 and A4. Some argument was advanced before us to 
the effect that the lands comprised in the transactions repre-
!iented by these documents have no direct access to tne 
road and that, therefore, they could not have fetched a 
good price. 
Bearing in mind the fact that these are all 
agricultural lands a rate of Rs. 4,500 per acre at which 
they were sold cannot prima facie be regarded as inade-
quate. 
As regards access, it is sufficient to say that they 
are parts of the same field which abut on the road, though 
the portions sold do not themselves abut on the road. 
Since the lamls :;:;Id under these sale deeds were part and 
parcel of the same field which abuts on the road those who 
purchased these lands would naturally obtain a right of way 
over the land unsold so as to have access to the road. 
In the circumstances we hold that the appeal is with-
out substance. Accordingly we dismiss it with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RANI RATNA PROVA DEVI RANI SAHEBA OF 
DHENKENAL 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS 
GUPTA, I. c. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JI.) 
ConJtitutio11 of India, 1950, Arts, 14 and 366(22)-0rissa Private Landr 
of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) Act (13 of 1958), 11. 5 and 6-
Validity-''Rulet', meaning of. 
The petitioners in these three writ petitions challenged the operative 
provisions of the OrisSa Private Lands of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) 
Act, 1958 and the Rules framed thereunder. These petitioncro posses• 
l9M 
K. Kllllkarath-
... 
Stilt< of Andhra 
Pradesh 
Mudhalkar I. 
1964 
lan•Vf, 11 
SUPREME- COURT REPORTS 
1964 
private lands in the State of Orissa, which before the impugned Act were 
Rani -
not subjected to the payment of rent. but which were assessed by the 
1:):.,n;-ovo Revenue Officers in conformity with the Rules framed under the Act. The 
-,. 
petitioners claims a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the said orders 
Stott o/ on.a of assessment. The Act 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. 
The main object of the Act is to authorise the levy of rent 1n respect 
of the private lands of persons included in the definition of the word 
"Ruler"' prescribed by s. 2(h l of the Act. Section 2(h) defines a "'Ruler" 
as meaning the Ruler of a merged territory in the State of Orissa and 
includes his relatives and dependants. The petitioners attacked the pro-
visions of the Act mainly on the ground that they contravened Art. 14 of 
the Constitution. 
Held: (i) that s. 6 of the Act does not contravene Art. 14 of the 
Constitution for the reason that fair and equitable tests have been laid 
down under s. 6 of the Act for determining the rent which should be assess· 
ed in respect of the private lands of the Rulers. In the present case the 
legislature had prescribed the method of determining the rent payable on 
the private lands; and the relevant factors specified by s. 6 appear to be 
just and substantially simiJar to the considerations which are generally 
taken into account at the time of survey settlement for determining the 
proper revenue assessment on ryotwari lands. 
The problem posed by the requirement to levy assessment on these 
private lands had to be dealt with· by the legislature on an ad ,\oc basis. 
The settlement of rent and assessment introduced by the Act had been 
made applicable to these lands for the first time, and so, these lands could 
not be treated as comparable in every respect with the lands which were 
governed by the rates prescribed under the previous !\ettlement. 
(ii) In considering the validity of a statute under Art. 14 the well~ 
established principle is that the legislature can make class 
legislation, 
provided the classification on which it purports to be based is rational and 
has a reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved by it. If 
the party fails to show that the said classification is irrational, or has no 
nexus with the object intended to be achieved by the impugned Act, the 
initial presumption of constitutionality would help the State to urge that 
the failure of the party

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.