LexTHE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH) versus MORADHWAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960J z960 The only other point that was argued at the bar . - . was a question of fact, namely, whether the corrupt Shri Bal wan Singh practice alleged had been proved. On that point ;;.,; I am in perfect agreement with the view expressed Lakshmi Narain by my learned brothers and have nothing to add. Sarkar ]. z960 February, 24 Appeal dismissed. THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH) v. MORADHWAJ SINGH AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO AND J. c. SHAH, JJ.) ] agirs, Abolition of-Constitutional validity of enactment- V indhya Pradesh Abolition of J agirs and Land Reforms Act, I952 (XI of I952), ss. 22(r), 37, Schedule cl. (4)(e)-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of I908), s. 9-Constitution of India, Art. JI A. ;. These appeals raised the question of constitutional validity of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (XI of 1952). Applications were made before the Judicial Commissioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground that various provisions of the Act placed unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Judicial Commissioner held that the Act, excepting s. 22(1), s. 37 and cl. (4)(e) of the Schedule to the Act, was constitutionally valid. The State appealed against that part of the order which declared the three provisions unconstitutional and one of the petitioners appealed against the order declaring the rest of the Act constitutional. Held, that the appeal OD the State must be allowed and that of the petitioner dismissed. It was not correct to say that s. 22 of the Act, which lays down the scheme for giving effect to s. 7(a) of the Act which permits the Jagirdars to remain in possession of certain lands even after the abolition of their jagirs, is a piece of colourable ~ legislation and, therefore, ultra vires the Legislature. That section cannot be said to discriminate as between jagirdars on the one hand and other occupants of land, to whom s. 28(1) applies, on the other, since they belong to distinct and different classes. - - ,...., 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 107 Even assuming that they belong to the same class and s. 22 r960 is discriminatory, that section is protected by Art. 31A of the Constitution. State of V. P. The question as to colourable legislation is really one v.1 relating to legislative competency and there can be no doubt that Moradhwaj Singh the Vindhya Pradesh Legislature was perfectly competent to enact the impugned provisions under Entry 18, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The State of Orissa. [1954] S.C.R. l and Raghubir Singh v. The State of Ajmer (Now Rajasthan). [1959] Suppl. (1) S.C.R. 478, relied on. There was no substance in the contention that s. 37 of the Act is repugnant to s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently ultra vires the State Legislature. The Vindaya Pradesh Legislature had undoubtedly the power under Entry 3, List II of the Seventh Schedule to make a provision likes. 37 of the Act and, once it did so, the last part of s. 9 of the Code would apply and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts would be barred by s. 9 of the Code read with s. 37 of the Act. Nor was it correct to say that cl. (4)(e) of the Schedule deprives the J agirdar · of his proprietary interest without compensation. Although he may have to pay rent for the land remaining with him, no revenue for such land was any longer payable by him and the revenue is taken into account in assessing compensation. The entire Act, therefore, falls within the protection of Art. 31A of the Constitution and, in view of the decisions of this Court, its constitutional validity is beyond question . . Case-law referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 40 to 110of1955. Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 12, 1953, of the former Judicial Commis- sioner's Court, Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa, in Misc. Applications (Writ} Nos. 51 to 119 and 121 of 1953. 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, M. Adhi- kari, Advocate-General for the State of 11I adhya Pradesh and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant (in C.As. Nos. 40 to 109 of 55) and respondent (in C.A. No. 110/55). K. B. Asthana, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents (in C.As. Nos. 40,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.