9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Article 32 seeking relief against infringement of fundamental rights, validity of sections 6 and 7 of Ajmer Government Wards Regulation, 1888, and section 112 of Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, abridgement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, determination of habitual infringement of tenant rights, reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(5), validity of section 112 under Article 31-A. Analysis: The petitioner, owning an "istimrari estate" in Ajmer, challenged the Deputy Commissioner's assumption of possession under sections 6 and 7 of the Ajmer Government Wards Regulation, 1888, and section 112 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950. The impugned order was deemed void as it allegedly contravened the petitioner's rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Section 112 penalized landlords habitually infringing tenant rights, allowing the Court of Wards to assume superintendence, abridging the petitioner's rights. The Court examined the provisions of section 112 and Regulation I of 1888, noting the discretionary power of the Court of Wards to assume superintendence based on subjective determinations. The Court highlighted the absence of a mechanism to challenge the determination of habitual infringement, emphasizing the subjective nature of the process, which could not be questioned in civil courts. The Court found the abridgment of the petitioner's rights under Article 19(1)(f) and declared the impugned provisions void. The Attorney-General argued for the validity of section 112 on grounds of the determination process not solely relying on the Court of Wards' opinion and being a reasonable restriction in the public interest. However, the Court rejected these arguments, stating that penal provisions punishing landlords did not constitute reasonable restrictions and deprived the petitioner of property rights without recourse, violating fundamental rights. Lastly, the Attorney-General invoked Article 31-A to validate section 112, but the Court found it inapplicable as the law did not involve acquisition by the State or modification of rights. The Court concluded that section 112 infringed the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f), directing the Court of Wards to restore possession of the estate to the petitioner and awarding costs. The petition was allowed, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights.
|
