LexSHRI KISHAN SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 53L SHRI KISHAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS. [S. R. DAs, AcTING C. J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYA&; )AFER IMAM and CttANDRASEKHARA A1YAR JJ.] Fundamental Rights, lnfringment of-Act settling fair and equitable rent restricted to a part of the State-Settlement of rent of diffe1·ent localities on different dates on decennial average-Possibility of variatio11 in rates of rent-If amount to denial of equality before laru-Deprivation of landlo1·d'.c right to realise 1"C11ts freely and with- out hindrance, if invasion of right to property-Retrospective enfcrce- ment of rates of rent, if amoU.'lts to violation of right to property and acquisition ruit/10ut compensation-Such power conferred on Settle- ment Officer, if arbitrm·y-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(l)(f), 31(2)-Marwar Land Revenue Act (XL of 1949), ss. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86. The petitioners, who arc jagirdars of Marwar, sought to impugn the constitutional validity of ss. 81 to 86 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act which embody a scheme for fixing fair and equitable rents payable by cultivating tenants on the ground that they infringed their fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(l)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. Their contentions were that after the merger of Marwar in thi:- State of Rajasthan the Act had become discriminatorv as it applie<l only to the jagirdars of Marwar and not to the entire body of jagir· dars of the State of Rajasthan, that settlement of rents made with reference to different areas on different dates on the basis of previ- ous ten years' average of collections might result in different rates of rent and lead to inequality such as is prohibited by Art. 14, that the Act deprived the landlords of their right to realise rents from the tenants freely and without hindrance and invaded their right· to hold property guaranteed by Art. 19(l)(f) of the Constitution, that the power conferred on the Scttlem.ent Officer by s. 86 of the Act to enforce the rates of rent retrospectively is an invasion of their right to hold property and amounts tci acquisition of property without compensation and that it confers absolute and uncontrolled discre- tion on the Settlement Otlicer and is an encroachment on the right to hold property. Held, repelling these contentions, that Art. 14 only prohibits unequal treatment of persons similarly situated and a classification might properly" be made on territorial basis, if that was germane to the purposes of the enactment and no tenancy legislation can be held to contravene the article solely on the ground that it does not apply to the entire State. Before the petitioners could succeed it was 1955 September 2 7 1955 .Shi KUM,. Singh andol/ra's "· Tiit Slat1 of Rqjulhan and •liur< 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1955] incumbent on them to show that conditions obtaining in other parts of the State were similac. to those in Marwar and this they had failed to do. Bowman v. Lewis [1879] IOI U.S. 22: 25 Law. Ed. 989, referred to. That the provision in the Act for assessment of rents with ref· erence to a portion of the area to which the Act applies is not a contravention of Art.' 14. To hold otherwise would be to make it impossible for any State to carry on its settlement operations. Biswa~ Singh v. The State of Orissa and others, [1954] S.C.R. 842, and- Tfiak.ur_ Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 303, applied. - That the fundamental right to hold property in the ease of a landlord in respect of his tenanted lands is no more than the right to receive reasonable rents and no legislation which has for its object the settlement of fair and equitable' rents can contravene Art. 19 (i)(f) of the Constitution even though it may give such rents retros· pcctive operation. That the provision in s. 86 of the Act empowering the Settle· 1nent Officer to give retrospective operation to the rates of rent docs not contravene Art. 19(1)(f) and, therefore, no question as to whc~ ther such a provision is not of a regulatory character and as •Such prohibited by Art. 19(5) can at all arise. That it is well settled that a law which regulates the relation of a landlord with his tenant is not one which takes property within the meaning of Art. 31 (2) even though it has the effect of reducing his rights. Consequently, there is nq contravention of Art. 31(2} of the Constitution. Thakur Jagannath
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.