9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Rajpramukh to enact the law. 2. Validity of the Bill preparation process under Article 212-A(2). 3. Whether the Act is ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. 4. Adequacy of compensation and public purpose under Article 31(2), and discrimination under Article 14. 5. Specific properties not falling within the purview of the Act. Detailed Analysis: I. Competence of the Rajpramukh to Enact the Law: The court examined the historical context and legal framework leading to the formation of the State of Rajasthan and the role of the Rajpramukh. It was concluded that the Rajpramukh had legislative competence under Article X(3) of the Covenant and Article 385 of the Constitution. The Rajpramukh was functioning as the Legislature of Rajasthan before the Constitution came into force, and thus, could exercise legislative powers under Article 385. The court rejected the contention that Article VII(3) of the Covenant limited the Rajpramukh's legislative power, noting that Article VII(3) pertained to executive power, not legislative power. II. Validity of the Bill Preparation Process under Article 212-A(2): The court reviewed the process of Bill preparation and found that although the Bill was initially prepared by the Ministers, the Rajpramukh's approval and reservation of the Bill for the President's consideration constituted adoption of the Bill as his own. The Rajpramukh's endorsement of approval was deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 212-A(2). The court also dismissed procedural objections regarding the President's role and the nature of the Bill as a Money Bill, affirming that the procedural requirements had been met. III. Whether the Act is Ultra Vires the Powers of the State Legislature: The court analyzed the nature of the Act and concluded that it was in substance a law relating to the acquisition of jagir lands, covered by Entry No. 36 in the State List. The court rejected the argument that resumption and acquisition were distinct legal concepts, noting that the Act provided for compensation, indicating that it was effectively an acquisition. The Act was held to be within the legislative competence of the State. IV. Adequacy of Compensation and Public Purpose under Article 31(2), and Discrimination under Article 14: The court held that the Act was protected by Article 31-A, which precluded challenges based on Articles 14 and 31(2). The compensation provided under the Act, though argued to be inadequate, was not illusory and thus did not amount to a fraud on the Constitution. The court also found no merit in the argument that the Act was discriminatory, as it applied uniformly to all jagir lands and allowed for practical considerations in resuming different classes of jagir lands on different dates. V. Specific Properties Not Falling Within the Purview of the Act: The court examined individual petitions where specific properties were claimed to be outside the scope of the Act. The court found that: - Petition No. 392 of 1954: The Khandela estate held under an izara of 1836 was not a jagir or istimrari tenure and thus not within the Act. - Petition No. 427 of 1954: Lands in Haripura held on Bhom tenure were within the Act, while the village of Niradun held as Javad was also within the Act. - Petition No. 468 of 1954: The village of Jorpura claimed to be dedicated for worship was reserved for further determination. - Petitions Nos. 474 and 475 of 1954: The Thikanas of Bhagwatgarh and Mangarh were held to be jagirs within the Act. - Petition No. 488 of 1954: The sub-grant from the izaradar was not within the Act. - Petition No. 36 of 1955: The properties held as Sansan were found to be dedicated for religious services and exempt under section 20 of the Act. Conclusion: The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act was upheld as valid, with the exceptions noted for specific properties in Petitions Nos. 392, 488 of 1954, and 36 of 1955. The court issued appropriate writs for these exceptions and dismissed all other petitions.
|
