1958 (11) TMI 44 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 8 of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955.
2. Validity of Section 38 of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955.
3. Competency of the Ajmer Legislature to pass the Act.
4. Applicability of the Act to jagirdars.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 8:
Section 8 of the Act allows the Collector to cancel certain leases granted on or after June 1, 1950, if they were not made in the normal course of management but in anticipation of the legislation for the abolition of intermediaries. The petitioners argued that such retrospective cancellation infringes upon the land-owner's right to dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. However, the court found no merit in this argument, stating that the legislature has the power to enact retrospective legislation and cancel instruments under certain circumstances, as seen in insolvency laws. The provision was deemed ancillary to the main objective of the Act and protected under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution.

2. Validity of Section 38:
Section 38 of the Act caps the maximum rent payable by a tenant at one and a half times the land revenue. The petitioners contended that this restriction was unreasonable. The court held that this provision aimed to discourage intermediaries from letting land and promote self-cultivation, aligning with the Act's objective of abolishing intermediaries. Therefore, Section 38 was also considered ancillary and protected under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution.

3. Competency of the Ajmer Legislature to pass the Act:
The petitioners questioned the Ajmer Legislature's authority to pass the Act, arguing that property acquired under the Act vested in the President and thus the Union, making it a matter for the Union Legislature under Entry 33 of List I. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Act was passed for acquiring estates for the purposes of the State of Ajmer, which falls under Entry 36 of List II. The court emphasized that the key issue was the purpose of acquisition, not where the property vested post-acquisition. The Act was thus within the legislative competence of the Ajmer Legislature.

4. Applicability of the Act to jagirdars:
The petitioner in one of the cases argued that the Act should not apply to jagirdars, who were merely assignees of land revenue and not landowners. The court dismissed this distinction, stating that jagirdars were considered holders of estates under the Act, and their entire interest in the estate was liable to resumption. The court referenced historical documents and previous judgments to affirm that jagirdars were proprietors of their jagirs, making their estates subject to the Act.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in any of the points raised by the petitioners. The petitions were dismissed with one set of costs to the contesting respondent.