9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court certificates under Art. 133(1)(c) the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed these appeals. The State is challenging the correctness of the decision of the High Court to the extent it went against it. The respondents on their part, in addition to supporting the findings of the High Court which are in their favour, relied also on the other pleas taken by them before the High Court. As we are of the opinion that the impugned Act is either violative of Art. 31(2) or, in the alternative, Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, we have not thought it necessary to go into the other contentions taken on behalf of the respondents. 2. Before the impugned Act was enacted, the State of Madhya Bharat which forms part of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, purported to abolish the cash grants payable by it by means of an executive order. That order was unsuccessfully challenged by Madhorao Phalke and others before the High Court. But in appeal this Court in Madhorao Phalke v. State of Madhya Bharat [1961] 1 SCR 957 quashed the order in question, holding that the grants in question were recognised by the kalambandis of 1912 and 1935 issued by the Rulers of Gwalior and those kalambandis are existing l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Section 12 says that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the State Government may by order make such provisions not inconsistent with purposes of this Act as appears to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty. 4. In these appeals we are mainly concerned with the vires of s. 3 read with the definition of "cash grant" on s. 2(1). If section 3 read with s. 2(1) is held to be ultra vires of the Constitution, then the whole Act falls to the ground as the remaining sections of the Act are merely subsidiary or incidental provisions. Section 3 ["3. Abolition of certain cash grants - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom, usage, sanad or a decree or order of a court or other authority whatsoever, all cash grants shall be discontinued and cease to have effect from the commencement of this Act : Provided that where the grantee is a person specified in column (1) of the Table below the cash grant may, at the option of the grantee exercised in such manner, within such period and in such form as may be presc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rants included therein. It is impermissible for this Court to rewrite that clause and confine the definition only to such of the cash grants which the legislature might be competent to abolish. (i) a grant of money for - (a) services of public temples, mosque or church; or (b) worship of public temples, mosque or church; or (c) reading puran in public temples; or (d) performing Kirtan in public temples; (ii) a grant of money to charitable or religious institutions; (iii) a grant of money or pension or annuity or special or perpetual annuity sanctioned under - (a) s. 5 of the Central Provinces and Bearar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 (XXXVII of 1948); (b) s. 77 or s. 81-A of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (1 of 1951); (c) s. 41 of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (XI of 1952); (d) the orders relating to Jagirs in Bhopal 'Ihekam Khusravi, 1949, para 30' read with s. 45-A of the Bhopal Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (No. X of 1953); and (e) sub-s. (2) of s. 160 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (20 of 1959);" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot;It was not necessary to decide in this case whether under the compulsory acquisition power the State has the power to acquire choses in action or money, but it cannot be seriously disputed that such an acquisition amounts to a forced loan and that the desired result can be more appositely obtained in exercise of the police power of the State than of the power of eminent domain or compulsory acquisition of property and that compensation in such a case is the same amount of money that is being taken and in the case of a chose in action the amount of money that it would produce. In this situation it cannot be held that fifty per cent of the outstanding arrears was compensation in any sense of that expression for this acquisition. The true position is that the State took over all the arrears and decided to refund fifty per cent of them and forfeit the rest. The validity of this acquisition has to be decided independently of the acquisition of the estates. It has no connection with land reform or with any public purpose. It stands on the same footing as other debts due to zamindars or their other movable properties, which it was not the object of the Act to acquire. As already stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iching the coffers of the State. It is true that the abolition of the cash grants would augment the resources of the State but that cannot be considered as a public purpose under Art. 31(2). If it is otherwise it would be permissible for the legislatures to enact laws acquiring the public debts due from the State, the annuity deposits returnable by it and provident fund payable by it by providing for the payment of some nominal compensation to the persons whose rights are acquired as the acquisitions in question would augment the resources of the State. But nothing so bad can be said to be within contemplation of Art. 31(2). That article must be construed harmoniously with Art. 19(1)(f). If so construed, it is obvious that the public purpose contemplated by that Article does include enrichment of the coffers of the State. Further the compensation referred to in Art. 31(2) is, as held by this Court in various decisions, is the just equivalent of the value of the property taken. If for every rupee acquired fifty paisas or less is made payable as compensation the violation of Art. 31(2) would be patent and in those circumstances the exercise of the powers by the legislature would be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction' would cover a legislation, which not merely regulated the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(f) but totally extinguished them, and whether a law like the present one which deprived the owner of his properties could be held to fall within that provision. It was argued that a law authorising the State to seize and destroy diseased cattle, noxious drugs and the like, could not be brought within Art. 19(5) if the word 'restriction' was to be narrowly construed, and that accordingly the power to restrict must be held to include in appropriate cases, the power to prohibit the exercise of the right. That view does find support in the observations of Lord Porter in Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales [1950] A.C. 235. : but the present legislation cannot be sustained even on the above interpretation of the word "restriction", as s. 3 (1) of the Act deals with moneys and money cannot be likened to diseased cattle or noxious drugs so as to attract the exercise of police power under Art. 19(5). It appears to us that whether we apply Art. 31(2) or Art. 19(5), the impugned Act cannot be upheld and it must be struck down." 14. If Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
