Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THESE are connected applications under Art, 226 of the Constitution and shall be disposed of by one judgment. The applications in these cases are Jagirdars or landholders in Tehsil Neem ka-Thana, District Jaipur and they are challenging certain orders in connection with Settlement operations in third area.
(2.) THE case of the applicants in all these cases in that Settlement opera tions took place in their Jagir villages under the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenure Act, 1947. In connection with those operations, rent-rates were published and were eventually approved under sec. 80 (4) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenure Act. 1947, by the Board of Revenue with the sanction of the Government of Rajasthan on the 28th of March, 1952. THEreafter slips or Parchas were distributed and the Settlement operations came to an end by a Gazette notification, dated 16th of May, 1953. Long after these operations had come to an end, the Government reduced the rent-rates by its order dated 28th July, 1954 and thus modified the earlier order of the 28th of March, 1952. Further, these reduced rent-rates were given retrospective operation from Svt. 2008 i. e. the year of settlement. This resulted in the income of the applications going down and in the likelihood that they would get less compensation now that their lands have been resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, the applicants have come to this Court and their principal contention is that there was no law which authorised the State Government in July, 1954 to modify the order passed by it on the 28th of March, 1952 under sec. 80 (4) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenure Act, 1947. The applications have been opposed on behalf of the State and the main reliance has been placed on the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act (No VI of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act ). We need not refer to any other points raised on behalf of the State, for they are in our opinion of no substance. The State relies on sec. 99 of the Act which is in these terms: - "notwithstanding any custom, usage or practice to the contrary and notwithstanding anything contained in any law, enactment, rule, order or instrument for the time being in force, all action taken by the State Government at any time on or after the 10th of January, 1954, and before the commencement of this Act in the nature of modification in rent-rates, classification of soil and assessment circles previously sanctioned and other connected matters shall be deemed to have been taken under this Act and the legality thereof shall not be questioned. " The Act came into force on the 9th of April, 55. It provided under earlier sections from 2 to 8 for review of sanctioned rent-rates in certain circumstances. Under sec. 9 it validated any modification in rent-rates etc. previously sanctioned before the 10th of January, 1951 and 9th of April, 1955. In view of this validation, it is unnecessary to consider the question whether the State Government had power to modify in July. 1954 the order which was passed on the 28th of March, 1952 under sec. 80 (4) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenure Act, 1947. Even if it had such power in July, 15-54, the modifications, if made in the rent-rates etc. by the order of 28th of July, 1954, have been validated by sec. 9 of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to sec. 1 sub-sec. (4) of the Act which is in these terms: - "it shall cease to have effect on the 1st day of January, 1956, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before that date, and sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897), shall apply upon the expiry of this Act as if this Act were a Central Act and had then been repealed by a Central Act. " The argument is that this Act was only in force up to the 1st of January, 1956 and therefore the validation by sec. 6 of the Act, was only for the period from 9th of April, 1955 to the 1st of January, 1956 and that when the Act came to an end, the order of 28th of July, 1954 again became invalid. We are of opinion that there is no force in this argument. It is true that the Act came to an end on the 1st January, 1956; but sub-sec. (4) of sec. 1 lays down that it shall remain effective as respects things done or omitted to be done under the Act between the 9th of April, and 1st of January, 1956. Thus, if any review was made under sec. 2 to 8 and order passed, say on the l0th of December, 1955, the order would remain effective even though the Act might come to an end on the 1st of January, 1956. Farther, sec. 6 of the General Glauses Act applies and clause (b) of sec. 6 lays down that the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. No v sec. 9 of the Act lays down that all action taken by the State between the 10th of January, 1951 and the 9th of April, 1955 in the nature of modification in rent rates etc. shall be deemed to have been taken under this Act, which, as we have already pointed out, provides for review of sanctioned rent rates etc. under secs. 2 to 8. Therefore, as soon as the Act came into force on the 9th of April 1955, the result of sec. 9 was that all orders of this kind modifying sanctioned rent rates etc passed between the 10th of January, 1951 and the 9th of April, 1955 became orders under sec. 8 of the Act as if they were passed on the 9th of April, 1955. S. 1, sub-s. (4) clearly lays down that the Act will cease to have effect except as respects things done. Now one of the things which sec. 9 of the Act itself does is to lay down that all orders passed previously between the 10th of January, 1951 and 9th of April, 1955 modifying rent rates etc. will be deemed to have been passed under the Act obviously on the very day it came into force, namely the 9th of April, 1955. If an act is deemed to have been done under an Act, it is as good as actually done under the Act. Therefore the order of the 28th of July, 1954 really became an order under the Act of the 9th of April 1935 by virtue of sec. 9. Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 1 makes it clear that anything done under the Act will remain effective. Therefore the order of 28th of July, 1954 which became an order under the Act dated 9th of April, 1935 by virtue of sec. 9 was a thing done under the Act before its repeal on the 1st of January, 195b and therefore remained effective. This is also an accord with clause (b) of sec. 6 of the General Glauses Act, 1897. That also lays down that the repeal would not affect any thing duly done under the repealed Act. Now under sec. 9 of the Act, all the earlier orders really became order under the Act dated 9th of April, 1955. Therefore, this was a thing done under the Act and when the Act came to an end on the 1st of January, 1956, the effect would be that provided in sec. 6 (b), namely that anything done remained effective viz. the earlier order modifying sanctioned rent rates became an order of 9th of April, 1955 under the Act and remained effective after the Act came to an end. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that there is no force in these applications. We hereby dismiss them; but in view of the circumstances, we pass no order as to costs. . ;