LexTHAKUR RAGHUBIR SINGH versus COURT OF WARDS, AJMER, AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS THAKUR RAGHUBIR SINGH v. COURT OF WARDS, AJMER, AND ANOTHER. 1049 [MEHR CHAND MAHA.JAN, MDKHERJEA, GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI and JAGANNADHADAsJJ.] Oonstitzdion of India, 1950, a1'ls. 19(1) (J), 19(5), 31-A-Ajmer Revenue and Land Records Act (XLII of I950) s. 112-Ajmer Gm>ernment Wards Regulation (I of 1888), ss. 6, 7-Law declaring landlords who habitually infringe the rights of a tenant to be dis- qualified prop1'ieto1's and empoweri1zg Court of Wa,.ds to assume management of their lands - Validity-Infringement of fundamental right-Reasonableness-Scope of article 31-A-" Modifioation of rights," meaning of. Section 112 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act (XLII of 1950) provided that "if a landlord l1abitually infringes the rights of a tenant under this Act, he shall, notwithstanding anything in section 7 of the ~-'\jmer Governu1ent Wards Regulation, 1888 (I of 1888) be deemed to be a 'landlord who is disqualified to manage bis own property' 'vithin the meaning 0£ section 6 of the said Regulation and his property shall be liable to be taken under the superintendence of the Court of W .rds." Section 6 of Regula- tion I of 1888 provided that the Court of Wards may, with the previous sanction of the Chief Corr1missioner, assume the superin~ tendence of the property of any landholder who is disqualified to manage his property. The petitioner, whose estate was taken over by the Court of Wards under the above-mentioned provisions of law, applied for relief under art. 32 of the Constitution for resto- ration of his estate and other appropriate reliefs: Held, (i) that the result of the combined operation of s. 112 of Act XLII of 1950 and the provisions of ss. 6 and 7 of Regula- tion I of 1888 was that the Court of Wards could in its own dis- cretion and on its subjective determination assume the superinten. dance of the property of a landlord who habitually infringed the rights of his tenants, and the exercise of .the discretion of the Court of Wards cannot be questioned in a civil court: s. 112 of Act XLII of 1950 read with the provisions of Regulation I of 1888 therefore infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed by art. 19 (1) of the Constitution and was to that extent void; (ii) the provisions of s. 112 cannot be regarded as a "reason- able" restriction imposed in the interests of the general public on the exercise of the right conferred by art. 19 (1) (f), because they completely negatived the right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere discretion of the executive; 136 • 1953 May 15. • 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953) 1953 (iii) that s. 112 was not validated by art. 31-A of the Consti- Thalmr tntiou as it was not "a law providing for the acquisition by the Raghubir Singh State of any estate or of any rights therein or for the extinction v · or modification of any such rights" within the meaning of art. The o~url of 31-A. The word "modification" in the context of art. 31-A only Wrtrds, AjJner, 1neans a modfication of the proprietary right of a citi.zen like and Another an extingnishn1ent of thttt right anCT cannot include within its ambit a mere suspension of the right of inanagernent of the estate for a time, definite or indefinite. Mahajan .l. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 29 of l!l53. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India praying that the Court of \Vards, Ajmer, be ordered to forbear from carrying on the superintendence of the istimrari estate and other properties of the petitioner and for restoration of possession and management of the said estate and properties. J. B. Dadachan,ii and H. C. Sogain for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (Bhava Datta Sharma, with him) for the respondents. 1953. May 15. The ,Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution seeking relief against alleged infringe- ment of certain fundamental rights of the petitioner and arises in these circumstances. The petitioner owns an "istimrari estate" in the State of Ajmer under an istimraii sanad granted to his ancestor in the year 1875. He enjoys therein a life interest with an obligation to perform certain duties as prescribed by the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regula- tion (II of 1877). The Deputy Commissioner of Ajmer, who is the Court of Wards constituted under the Ajmer Government \Yards Regulation (I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.