LexTHAKUR AMAR SINGHJI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' Ii 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·THAKUR AMAR SINGHJI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (AND OTHER PETITIONS) 303 [MUKHERJEA c. ]., s. R. DAS, BHAGWATI, VENKATA- RAMA AYYAR AND ]AFER IMAM JJ.] Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of /agirs Act (Raja- sthan Act VI of 1952)-Validity-Rajpramukh-Competence to enact the law-Covenant of the United State of Rafasthan, arts. Vil (3), X (3)-"0rdinance", meaning of-Bill, whether prepared by the Raf- pramukh as required by the Constitution-Resumption of jagir lands -Legislative competence-Pith and substance of legislation-Acquisi- tion or resumption-/agir, meaning of-Legislative practice-Im- plied grant-Legislative ,grants-Constitutions of India, Arts. 14, 31-A, 31(2), 212-A(2), 385, Sch. Vil, List II, entries 18, 36-Mar- war Land Revenue Act (XL of 1949), s. 169-Mewar Governmenl Kanoon Mal Act (V of 1947), s. 106-Bhomicharas, Bhomias Tikanadars, Subeguzars, Marsubdars holders of other tenures. The Bill which came to be enacted as the Rajasthan Land Re- forms and Resumption of Jagirs Act was prepared in the Ministerial Department of the Government of Rajasthan. It was approved by the Rajpramukh on 8-2-1952, and reserved for the consideration of the President, who gave his assent to it on 13-2-1952. By notifica- tion issued on 16-2-1952, the Act came into force on 18-2-1952. In pursuance of s. 21 ( 1) of the Act, the State of Rajasthan issued notifi- cations resuming the jagirs specified therein, whereupon petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution were filed by the persons aggrieved challenging the validity of the Act before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitions were dismissed and thereupon they filed petitions before the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Act. They contended inter alia that the Rajpramukh had no competence to enact the law that the Bill was not prepared by the Rajpramukh as required by Art. 212-A(2), that resumption was not one of the topics of legislation enumerated either in the State List or in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and that the Act was therefore ultra vires the powers of the State, that the Act did not provide for ad~quate com- pensation nor was there any public purpose involved in it and therefore it contravened Art. 31(2), and that as the Act was discrimi- natory it contravened Art. 14. There were some special contentions that the Act was not saved by Art. 31-A, because the lands resumed were neither estates nor jagirs nor grants similar to jagirs, inams or muafi and that some of the properties sought to be resumed were not jagirs as defined in the Act and therefore the notifications under s. 21 of the Act in so far as they related to them were illegal. 1955 TAal;ur AMM Sinf/fii "· ,,.,, of /IJj<UtMn 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] Held that, (i) the Rajpramukh was competent to enact the im· pugned law (under Art. 385 as he was the authority functioning immediately before the commencement of the Constitution as the legislature of Rajasthan under art. X (3) of the Covenant of the United State of Rajasthan. The expression "Ordinance" in art. X (3) must be construed as meaning "Law". Article VII (3) of the Covenant has reference to the executive power which the Rulers had to resume jagirs and does not operate as a restric_tion on the legisla· tive powers under art. X (3). The Legislature of the corresponding State mentioned in Art. 385 refers not to the legislature under the Constitution, but to the body or the authority which was function· ing as the legislature of the State before the commencement of the Constitution and under Art. X (3) of the Covenant of the United State of Rajasthan, that authority was the Rajpramukh. Article 385 does not require that that authority should have had absolute and unlimited powers of legislation. If it was functioning as the legislative authority before the Constitution, it would, under the article, have all the powers conferred by the Constitution on the House or Houses of legislature of the States. (ii) Article 212·A(2) which provides that the Rajpramukh should prepare the Bill, does not require that he should himself draft it. It is sufficient if he decides questions of policy which arc of the essence of the legislation. It is open to the Rajpramukh to adopt a Bill pre- pared by his ministers and the only matter that will have to be con- sidered is whether in fact h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.