TMI Blog1953 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under an istimrari sanad granted to his ancestor in the year 1875. He enjoys therein a life interest with an obligation to perform certain duties as prescribed by the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation (11 of 1877). The Deputy Commissioner of Ajmer, who is the Court of Wards constituted under the Ajmer Government Wards Regulation (I of 1888), took over possession and assumed superintendence of the said estate on the 18th September, 1952, purporting to act under sections 6 and 7 of the Regulation read with section 112 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 (XLII of 1950), and hence this petition for a writ of mandamus or one in the nature thereof, or for the issue of a direction to the Court of Wards for restoration of possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Penal Code, in like manner, section 112 declares a landlord who habitually infringes the rights of a tenant a person disqualified to manage his own property within the meaning of section 6 of Regulation I of 1888, the consequence being that his property becomes liable to be taken over by the Court of Wards. The section is an ingenious and novel device to punish landlords who habitually infringe the rights of tenants. It authorizes the use for punitive purposes of the machinery of Regulation I of 1888 enacted to make better provision for the superintendence of Government Wards in AjmerMerwara. By force of the declaration in section 112 of the Act, landlords who habitually infringe the rights of the tenants fall within the category of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified proprietor depends merely on the subjective determination of the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner or of the Chief Commissioner, and the exercise of this discretion cannot be questioned in any manner in a civil court. Act XLII of 1950 says nothing whatsoever on this subject. The contention that the provisions of section 112 of Act XLII of 1950 read with the provisions of Regulation I of 1888 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, is, in our opinion, well-founded and does not require any elaborate discussion. The petitioner's right to hold the istimrari estate and his power of disposal over it stand abridged by the act of the Court of Wards authorized by these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question whether a landlord is guilty of habitually infringing the rights of his tenants, and rightly so, because section II 2 of the Act is merely of a declaratory character and declares such a landlord as being under a disability and suffering from an infirmity. This declaration becomes operative and effective only when the Court of Wards in its discretion decides to assume superintendence of the property of such a proprietor. In other words, when the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner is of the opinion that such a proprietor should be deprived of possession of his property, this determination then operates to the prejudice of the landlord, but he cannot challenge the exercise of the discretion by these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r bad behaviour or for misconduct of a landlord cannot possibly be regarded as restriction on a fundamental right. Indeed, a punishment is not a restriction. This was frankly conceded by the learned Attorney-General. It is still more difficult to regard such a provision as a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right. When a law deprives a person of possession of his property for an indefinite period of time merely on the subjective determination of an executive officer, such a law can, on no construction of the word reasonable be described as coming within that expression, because it completely negatives the fundamental right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere pleasure and discretion of the executive, the citizen affected ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n extinguishment of that right and can not include within its ambit a mere suspension of the right of management of estate for a time, definite or indefinite. Historically speaking, article 31 -A which has relation to article 31(2) of the Constitution, has no relevancy whatsoever to the law enacted in section 112 of the Act XLII of 1950. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the law enacted in section 112 of Act XLII of 1950 is not saved either by clause (5) of article 19 or by article 31-A of the Constitution. It manifestly infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. That being so, the petitioner is entitled to a direction that possession of his estate be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
