CHIMARAM Vs. MAHARAO KHUMAN SINGHJI
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-5-21
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on May 15,1952

CHIMARAM Appellant
VERSUS
MAHARAO KHUMAN SINGHJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H. D. Ujjwal - (1.)THIS is a reference made by the Division Bench on 7. 11. 51. The point of reference, is that on 21. 10. 44 vide No. 4524 the Revenue Minister of the covenanting Bikaner State ordered that if during the settlement operations of a jagir village a muafidar was found to hold a muafi covered by a patta no rent may be assessed on his muafi land but if it was not covered by a patta or any other document it shall be assessed at half the rent assessable thereon, notwithstanding the fact that they did not pay any rent in the past. Decisions were taken in compliance of this law in the aforesaid State as also by this Board. An objection has now been raised by the applicant that the notification referred to above has not been published in the State Gazette of the above named State and that it has been held by the Supreme Court in Harla vs. The State of Rajasthan that mere resolution of a Council of Ministers in the Jaipur State without further publication or promulgation would not be sufficient to make a law operative. Therefore the same principle applies in this case.
(2.)COUNSELS for the parties were heard.
Counsel for the applicant has argued that in the covenanting Bikaner State all laws used to be published in the State Gazette. The order under reference by the Revenue Minister has not been published in the State Gazette. It is not a departmental circular. It has far reaching effects on all the muafidars in the State. Therefore its publication in the State Gazette was necessary and it is therefore a nullity.

Counsel for the opposite party argued that it was within the schedule of powers of the Minister concerned to confiscate a muafi or to impose rent thereon. Therefore there was no necessity of its publication in the State Gazette.

We have carefully considered the arguments of the parties. The plea that it was within the schedule of powers of the Revenue Minister to confiscate a muafi or assess rent thereon does not appear reasonable. The power to assess rent on muafi does not confer on him the jurisdiction to make a general law to assess rent on muafis in general. The order of the Revenue Minister is a law which affects all muafidars, and is not a decision in an individual case. Therefore unless it is proved that the Revenue Minister enjoyed law making powers in this regard, the order under reference cannot be held valid. Secondly its publication in the State Gazette was essential as there was the practice in the said State to Gazette all laws. Since this order has also not been gazetted, it can not have the force of law. The reply therefore to the reference is that the order of the Revenue Minister of the covenanting Bikaner State dated 21. 10. 44 will cease to have the force of law. The case may be returned to the Division Bench for disposal. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.