1962 (2) TMI 91 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality and legislative competence of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957.
2. Definition and classification of "jagirs" under the Act.
3. Validity of the resumption of "Cis-Sutlej" jagirs under the Act.
4. Whether the assignment of land revenue to jagirdars constituted a grant by the State Government.
5. Legitimacy of retrospective amendment to the Act defining "State Government."
6. Rights of reversionary heirs in the compensation amount payable on resumption of jagirs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality and Legislative Competence of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Act on the grounds that it was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and unconstitutional. The Court held that the legislation was within the competence of the State and did not contravene any constitutional provisions. The Act was deemed to fall under entries 18 and 45 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, which pertain to "land" and "land revenue," respectively.

2. Definition and Classification of "Jagirs" under the Act:
The primary contention was whether the Cis-Sutlej jagirs fell within the definition of "jagirs" as per Section 2(1) of the Act. The definition included any assignment of land revenue made by or on behalf of the State Government. The Court examined the historical context and concluded that the Cis-Sutlej jagirs constituted assignments of land revenue, thus falling within the scope of the Act.

3. Validity of the Resumption of "Cis-Sutlej" Jagirs under the Act:
The petitioners argued that the jagirs in question were not liable to be resumed as they were not "jagirs" as defined in the Act. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the jagirs were indeed subject to the provisions of the Act. The historical analysis demonstrated that the jagirs were originally independent states but had been reduced to the status of jagirdars under an implied grant by the British Government.

4. Whether the Assignment of Land Revenue to Jagirdars Constituted a Grant by the State Government:
The Court examined whether there was an assignment of land revenue by the State Government. It was concluded that the British Government had effectively made an implied grant of land revenue to the jagirdars, thereby bringing them within the purview of the Act. The Court noted that the jagirdars had been stripped of their sovereign powers and reduced to the status of subjects, receiving land revenue under an implied grant.

5. Legitimacy of Retrospective Amendment to the Act Defining "State Government":
The petitioners contended that the amendment to the Act, which retrospectively defined "State Government" to include the British Government, was ultra vires. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the amendment was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The retrospective definition was deemed necessary to clarify the Act's applicability and was not considered a "colourable legislation."

6. Rights of Reversionary Heirs in the Compensation Amount Payable on Resumption of Jagirs:
An intervener sought protection for his reversionary rights in the compensation amount payable to the jagirdar. The Court declined to adjudicate on this matter within the scope of the present proceedings, stating that such issues should be addressed through appropriate legal channels. The Court referenced a previous decision where compensation was apportioned between a jagirdar and his son but emphasized that the current proceedings were not the proper forum for deciding such claims.

Conclusion:
The petitions and appeals were dismissed, with the Court upholding the validity and applicability of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957. The jagirs in question were deemed to fall within the Act's definition, and the retrospective amendment defining "State Government" was found to be legitimate. The Court did not provide specific directions regarding the rights of reversionary heirs, leaving such matters to be resolved through other legal proceedings.