LAWS(SC)-1958-11-17

RAGHUBIR SINGH GAJADHAR GAJINDER SINGH SHIV SINGH RAGHBIR SINGH CHANDER SEN SINGH VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH SAWAI SINGH GIRDHAR SINGH FATEHPAL SINGH RAO GANPATI SINGH RUP SINGHJI HANUMANDASJI UGRA SEN AMAR SINGHJI ANAND BEHARI SINGH MADHO Vs. STATE OF AJMER

Decided On November 14, 1958
Raghubir Singh And Ors., Gajadhar Gajinder Singh, Shiv Singh, Raghbir Singh, Chander Sen Singh, Vijay Bahadur Singh, Sawai Singh, Girdhar Singh, Fatehpal Singh, Rao Ganpati Singh, Rup Singhji, Hanumandasji, Ugra Sen, Amar Singhji, Anand Behari Singh, Madho Singh, Bajjra Nath Sen, Takhat Singh, Ranvir Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Rani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF AJMER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These sixty-nine petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution by various land-owners in the former State of Ajmer attack the validity of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, (Ajmer III of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act). The petitions disclose a large number of grounds on which the validity of the Act is impugned; but learned counsel, Mr. Achhru Ram and Mr. B. D. Sharma, appearing for various petitioners, have confined their arguments only to certain grounds raised in the petitions. We propose, therefore, to consider only the grounds urged before us.

(2.) The Act was passed by the Ajmer Legislative Assembly and received the assent of the President on 29-5-1955. Section 4 of the Act provided for vesting of all estates held by intermediaries, as defined in the Act, in the State Government from a date to be notified. The Act came into force on 23-6-1955, and 1-8-1952, 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 Art. 31-A (1) (a) of the Constitution inasmuch as it is a piece of legislation for acquisition by the State of any estate or at any rights therein. The argument 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 Ss. 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. Re: Section. 8.