LexTHAKUR BAHADUR SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I96I March x7. 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] THAKUR BAHADUR SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. w ANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Resumption of Jagirs-Extinguishment of tribute-Hukam- nama, if amounts to tribute-Demand for hukamnama, if maintain- able-M arwar Land Revenue Act, r949 (Marwar 40 of 1949), ss. r85(I), r9o(I)-Rajasthan Land Reforms and, Resumption of Jagirs Act, z952 (Rajasthan 6 of r952), ss. 2(r), 4(a), 8. The title of the petitioner to sncceed to the jagir as the next heir of his father who died in July 1946 was recognised and a renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an order dated March 8, 1952. Section 190 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949, imposed an obligation on the succeeding heir to execute within one month of the communication to him of the order a kabuliyat for payment of hukamnama and other fees according to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act, and the amount payable by the petitioner thereby which came to Rs. 30,000 was demanded by the respondent-State. In the mean- time, the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of J agirs Act, 1952, had been passed and came into force on February 16, 1952, and s. 4(a) of this Act enacted that "the liability of all Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing Jagir Law shall cease", while "tribute" was defined bys. 2(r) in the following terms: "Tribute' in relation to a jagir, includes rekh, rakam, chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar nature". The petitioner challenged the legality of the demand on the ground that the liability to pay hukamnama was a tribute within the meaning of that word in s. 4(a). Held, that notwithstanding that the definition of the ex- pression "tribute" ins. 2(r) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, is inclusive, on an examination of the meaning of the word as used in the operative provisions of the Act, it could refer only to recurring payments which could be said to be attributable to particular years and not to the type of ad hoc payments of which hukamnama was an example. Accordingly, the liability to pay hukamnama is not compre- hended within the expression "tribute" under s. 4(a) and, consequently, was not extinguished by the provisions of the Rajasthan Act of 1952. Thakur Narpat Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, I.L.R. [1955] Rajasthan 534, referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 200 of 1955. t • > I • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 439 Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of I96I India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Thakur S. K. Kapoor and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioner. Bahadur Singh G. 0. Kasliwal and D. Gupta, for the respondents. v. State of Rajasthan 1961. March 17. The Judgment of the Court was _ delivered by Ayyangar ]. AYYANGAR, J.-Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Ja,girs Act, 1952 (which will be hereafter referred to as the Raja,sthan Act), enacts: "4. AU lands liable to pay land revenue.-N ot- withstanding anything contained in any existing jagir law or any other law, all jagir lands shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be liable to payment of land revenne to the Government; and as from such commencement, the liability of- (a) all Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Govern- ment under any existing Jagir Law shall cease, and " The expression 'tribute', the liability to pay which was thus extinguished from and after the commence- ment of the Act, was defined ins. 2(r) of that Act in the following terms: "'Tribute' in rela,tion to a ja,gir, includes rekh, rakam, chatund, chakri or other charge of a similar nature; ·and" In the absence of the above provision the petitioner would have been under an obligation to pay to the Government 'hukamnama' under s. 190 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949 (referred to hereafter as the Marwar Act) which codified the ea,rlier law in that State. The short question that is ra,ised by this peti- tion under Art. 32 of the Constitution is whether the liability of the petitioner to pay 'hukamnama', the nature of which we shall explain later, has been extin- guished by the provision of the Rajasthan Act above extracted which, as would be seen, turns on whether such a payment could be comprehended within the expression 'tribute'. Relying on s. 4(a) of the Rajas- than Act, the petitioner resists
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.