1955 (4) TMI 42 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953
2. Binding Nature of Merger Agreements and Letters of Guarantee
3. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 363 of the Constitution
4. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature
5. Discrimination and Confiscation Claims
6. Specific Claims of Petitioner in Petition No. 364 of 1954

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953:
The petitioners challenged the vires of the impugned Act, asserting that it violated the guarantees provided in the merger agreements and letters of guarantee. They argued that the State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact the law, which deprived them of their jagirs.

2. Binding Nature of Merger Agreements and Letters of Guarantee:
The petitioners contended that the guarantees provided in the merger agreements and letters of guarantee were binding on the State of Bombay. They argued that the Dominion Government's obligations devolved upon the Province of Bombay and subsequently the State of Bombay under Article 294 of the Constitution. The respondents countered that these agreements were not binding on the State of Bombay and that the petitioners were not parties to these agreements and thus could not enforce them.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 363 of the Constitution:
The court noted that even if the petitioners were considered parties to the agreements, Article 363 barred the court's jurisdiction in disputes arising out of such agreements. The court cited previous rulings, emphasizing that disputes related to the agreements of merger and letters of guarantee were beyond the court's jurisdiction.

4. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature:
The court held that the State Legislature had plenary powers to legislate on topics enumerated in Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, unless expressly prohibited by the Constitution. The court found no such express prohibition and concluded that the impugned Act was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The court also noted that the guarantee in clause 5 of the letters of guarantee was not absolute and allowed for legislation that did not discriminate against the States and their subjects.

5. Discrimination and Confiscation Claims:
The petitioners argued that the impugned Act was discriminatory and confiscatory. The court found that even if the Act was discriminatory, it could not be challenged under Article 31-A(2)(a) of the Constitution, which protected laws providing for the acquisition of estates from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. The court concluded that the petitioners' claims of discrimination and confiscation did not affect the validity of the impugned Act.

6. Specific Claims of Petitioner in Petition No. 364 of 1954:
The petitioner in Petition No. 364 of 1954 claimed that his estate, Moti More, was not a jagir within the definition provided in the impugned Act. He provided historical evidence to support his claim. The State of Bombay denied these allegations. The court concluded that this issue required a thorough examination of evidence in a civil suit. The court adjourned the petition, allowing the petitioner to file a civil suit within three months to establish his rights. The stay granted by the court would continue in the meantime, and the State of Bombay undertook not to take any steps against the petitioner during this period.

Conclusion:
Petitions Nos. 337 to 349, 365, 366, 481, and 690 of 1954 were dismissed. Petition No. 364 of 1954 was adjourned sine die, pending the outcome of a civil suit to be filed by the petitioner. Each party was ordered to bear their respective costs.