TMI Blog1958 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by intermediaries, as defined in the Act, in the State Government from a date to be notified. The Act came into force on June 23, 1955, and August 1, 1955, was notified as the date on which the estates held by intermediaries would vest in the State Government. The present petitions followed on the fixing of this date. 3. It is not disputed that the Act is protected under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution inasmuch as it is a piece of legislation for acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein. The arguments is that in spite of this protection, either the whole Act or certain provisions of it are invalid, for reasons urged by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Achhru Ram attacks only sections 8 and 38 of the Act. Mr. Sharma attacks the competency of the Ajmer legislature to pass the Act and also urges that in any case it does not apply to the case of jagirdars, one of whom is a petitioner before us in Petition No. 33 of 1956. These four are the only grounds that have been urged before us, and we shall deal with them seriatim. 4. Re. section 8. Section 8 is in these terms - Where an intermediary has on or after the 1st day of June, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made in Act, it cannot be said that it is not protected under Article 31A. The provision is not an independent provision; it is merely ancillary in character enacted for carrying out the objects of the Act more effectively. The intention of the legislature was to give power to the Collector after the estates vested in the State Government to scrutinise leases of this kind made after June 1, 1950, which was apparently the date from which such legislation was under contemplation and to see whether the leases were such as a prudent land-owner would enter into in the normal course of management. Such leases would be immune from cancellation; but if the Collector found that the leases were entered into, not in the normal course of management but designedly to make whatever the land-owners could before the estate came to be transferred to the State Government, he was given the power to cancel the same, as they would obviously be a fraud upon the Act. Such cancellation would subserve the purposes of the Act, and the provision for it would therefore be an integral part of the Act, though ancillary to its main object, and would thus be protected under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry for the purposes of carrying out the objects of the Act. 8. Re. The competency of the Ajmer Legislation. 9. The argument in this behalf is put in this way. The Act is a piece of legislation for the acquisition of estates. Before the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, came into force on November 1, 1956, there were two entries relating to acquisition of property in the Seventh Schedule, namely, entry 33 of List I (acquisition or requisitioning of property for the purposes of the Union) and entry 36 of List II (acquisition or requisitioning of property, except for the purposes of the Union, subject to the provisions of entry 42 of List III). The argument continues that the Act was passed by the Ajmer legislature under the power it was supposed to have under entry 36 of List II read with section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 (XLIX of 1951). But entry 36 of List II only gives power to the State legislature to acquire property for purposes other than the purposes of the Union. As, however, the property acquired under the Act vested in the President and therefore the Union after its acquisition, the Act was really for the acquisition of property for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st after acquisition in deciding the ambit of the competence of the legislature under those two entries. The key to the interpretation of these two entries is not in whom the property would vest after it has been acquired but whether the property is being acquired for the purposes of the Union in one case or for purposes other than the purposes of the Union in the other. It is in this context that the competency of the Ajmer legislature to enact this law under entry 36 of List II is to be judged. 12. Section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act created a Legislative Assembly for Ajmer and gave that legislative assembly power to make laws for the whole or any part of the State with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Ajmer legislature was thus given power to pass laws with respect to acquisition of property for purposes other than those of the Union. In other words, it had the power to make law to acquire property for the purposes of the State of Ajmer or for any other public purpose. The question then is whether the Act was passed acquiring estates in the State of Ajmer for the purposes of the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 for payment of the revenue assessed upon an estate, under section 2(d). Further, section 64 provides that all persons who are bound by the agreement prescribed by section 61 and their successors-in-interest shall, while they continue to be owners of land in the Estate to which such agreement relates, be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the whole amount of revenue assessed upon such estate. The Ajmer Regulation also defines particular types of estates like 'Istimrari Estate' and 'Bhum'; but the general meaning of the word 'estate' under the Ajmer Regulation is an area of land separately assessed to revenue, which is payable by the holder of the estate. 'Intermediary' as defined in section 2(viii) of the Act is a holder of an estate and includes a jagirdar. Under section 4 all the estates held by intermediaries vest in the State Government on the issue of a notification. Therefore, if the jagirdars are intermediaries, that is holders of estates, their estates will vest in the State Government under section 4 of the Act. The distinction which the learned counsel for this petitioner draws between the interest of the jagirdar as jagirdar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
