JAGAT NARAYAN. J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Munsif, Banswara, in a suit in which the validity of sec. 80 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 has been questioned. THIS section runs as follows: "tenant's right in trees existing at the commencement of this Act - Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any custom or contract to the contrary, scattered trees standing on the holding of a Khatedar tenant at the commencement of this Act shall vest in such tenant; Provided that where such trees are the property of any other person at the commencement of this Act, such person shall be given compensation by the tenant in accordance with rules prescribed in that behalf".
(2.) THE above Act came into force on 15-10-55. THE Rules for determining compensation provided in the proviso to the above section were however framed in 1958. THE constitutional validity of the provision is challenged on the ground that at the time of enforcing the law the principles for determining compensation were not laid down. Nor was the amount of compensation prescribed by the law providing fur deprivation of property in trees as provided by Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution. The above law is however saved under Art. (2a) which runs as follows: "where a law does not provide for the transfer of the ownership or right to possession of any property to the State or to a corporation owned or controlled by the State, it shall not be deemed to provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property, notwithstanding that it deprives any person of his property". The above clause was added by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 on 27-4-55, that is, before the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 came into force. The trees standing on the holding of a tenant are not transferred to the State, or to a corporation owned or controlled by the State. The ownership in the trees is transferred to the tenant in whose field they stand. The provision is therefore not open to challenge on the ground of its violating Art 31 (2) of the Constitution. The other objection which has been raised is that the transfer of ownership in the trees is not for a public purpose. We are of the opinion that there is a public purpose behind this provision. Before this provision was enacted the persons who had planted the trees and who were owners thereof had a right to trespass into the fields of the tenants to exercise their right of ownership over the trees and there were frequent disputes between such owners and the tenants in whose fields such trees stood. In order to avoid such disputes the provision was enacted. We accordingly hold that the provision contained in sec. 80 of the Tenancy Act is constitutionally valid. The reference is answered as indicated above. Let a copy of it be sent to the learned Munsif. . ;