SHRI KISHAN SINGH & Ors. v. September 2 7

Shri Kishan Singh and others v. Tiu Slate of Rajasthan a,.J ollurs 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 533 M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General Singh and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for No. 1. India (Kan respondent K. R. Chowdhury, for Goma, Ghisa and Rama, respon respondents in Petition No. 655 and Dhira, dent in petition No. 678. 1955. September

#27. The Judgment Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-These are ap~lic~tio~s the Constitution. These a notification under s·ection 64, Section 81 of the Act provides local area has been brought under inspect every village soil-classes and assessment circles, select under article 32 of the Constitution by certam pg1r the constitutionality of dars of Marwar, challenging 86 sections 81 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act No. XL of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground the fundamental rights they infringe of the petitioners under article 14, article 19(1) (f) and article 31 (2) sections provide for fixing fair and equitable rent payable by the procedure to be followed the tenants and prescribe therefor. that when settlement operations by an Assistant Settlement Officer Settlement Officer or in the local area, divide it in such mann~r rates for these proposais as may be prescribed. them, and submit his are received, he has the Board of Revenue. The Board has the report the proposals with or without any to sanction to direct it has also modifications, and further enquiry the Settlement arriving at fair and equitable Officer is section 82 to have regard to· the nature of rent the collection of rent and cesses during the settlement exclud the ten years p1eceding ing such years as the Government may, by notifica to be abnormal, agricultural produce during the same period, the nature of the crops grown the quantity of the produce and their value. Sec rates shall not tion 82(2) provides If objections to the Official Gazette, declare the matters. With a view the area and publish average required under to consider the power the prices rates, 1955 Shri K.Uhatt Singh and others v. The State of Raja.st/um and others V enkalarama .4.ua: J. 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] lands. Under section 84, the produce of unir exceed one-third of the value of the value of the pro rigated and one-fourth of duce of irrigated the Settle ment Officer shall determine rents whether by way of abatement, enhancement or commutation payable all holdings the Board of Revenue. Sec tion 86 enacts Settlement Officer shall be payable from the hrst day the date of such order, "unless of July next following fit for any reasons to the Settlement Officer some earlier direct date". thinks it shall be payable that any rent fixed by order of the occupation of tenants on the the rates sanctioned by the Act, published the Act bringing the Board of Revenue Acting under section 81 of the Settlement Officer, who

#1954. On 13th October 1954 they were on 12th December 1953. Objections to the Settlement Officer formulated certain proposals with reference in the villages comprised in the jagirs the rent of the petitioners and Gazette by the petitioners on the 12th Janu rate$ were the Additional ary, final propo Settlement Commissioner submitted his forwarded for sanction. After the Board passed an order making further enquiry, the rent rates payable. Sub on 4-12-1954 determining to this, an order was also passed under sec sequent tion 86 of operation from 1-7-1954. This order in these proceedings, and it cannot subject of attack be, seeing that Petition No. 621 of 1954 was filed on 24th November 1954 before that order was, ~passed, and Petitions Nos. 655 and 678 of 1954 merely repeat verbatim the allegations in Petition No. 621 of 1954. they were not Before us, the petitioners conceded impugning the order ' passed under far as it gave operation to the rates section 86 in rent from 1st its merits, but that they the section :is bad only as a step attacking of the Act, of which establishing the scheme section 86 is an integral part taken as a whole. an rights under arti infringement of their to consider cles 14, 19 and 31 (2). We have now is not itself is, fundamental the correctness of the sanctioned July, on 1955 Shri Kishan Singh and others v. The State of Rajaslhan anti others V enkalarama A»ar ]. 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 535 to its merger it, and that as the protection of the jagirdars it, two grounds It is stated firstly to 86 of above prov1s10ns whether sections 81 mfringing in other areas to those which obtain the Act are bad as of the Constitution. Ti1e contention that sections 81 to 86 of the Act are to be void as being repugnant to article 14 is sought that the made out on Act applies only to what was prior State of Marwar, the present State of Ra1asthan comprises Marwar and 17 other States which have merged the Act, as it stands, is dir~cted against in one area of the State and not the whole of it has become discriminatory and void. This contention is clearly untenable. What treatment of persons is the unequal article 14 prohibits situated, and therefore before the petitioners similarly can claim that article, to establish that the conditiom which bent on in the State of Rajasthan are prevail similar in Marwar. But of this, there has been neither allegation nor proof. On the in para 10 contrary, jagirs of of their statement Marwar were paying much more by way of rent and the Khalsa area of the State, cesses inequality between that with a view the two classes of tenants within the State, a law was in 1943 providing for settlement of rent, and passed another law was passed abolishing all cesses the maximum share of rent payable features, justification for a ~eparate is also stated legislation· for that the It other States had their own rent laws suited to their conditions. There are no materials on which we could character, and we cannot strike it down merely on the ground to the whole of the State of Rajasthan. the impugned Act is discriminatory it is stated by the respondents is argued, form sufficient to remove in kind. These special it does not apply (lags) and fixing this area. that the in the 1~1-1947 tenants A si.milar question arose for decision the areas in Bowman v. Lcrvis(1 ). There, some of in the State of Missouri were governed by a judicial procedure diff (1) [1879) IOI U. S. 22: 25 Law. Ed. 989. '955 Shri Kishan Singh and others v. Tl1' Stai. of Rajasthan and others Venkalaram, Al7a' j. 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] erent from that which prevailed the contention equal protection clauses of the Court observed : ment, "Each State has the right this differentiation offended in others. Repelling the Fourteenth Amend its territory divisions of to regulate, their administration of justice, of courts for cities and another for one system for one portion of other system for necessity, often requires seriously interfere with the power of a State to late its internal affairs to make political sub for m'unicipal purposes, and government. As system it may establish one rural districts; territory and an another portion. Convenience, if not to be done, and it would regu- to it this right ......... . to deny respects judicature its corresponding to an adjoining State or part of a State If a Mexican State should be acquired by a treaty and added the United States, and two should be erected into a new State, it cannot be doubted that such new State might allow the Mexican laws and judicature · to con in the one portion and the common tinue unchanged law and the other portion. Such an arrangement would not be prohibited in any fair construction of the Fourteenth Amend ment. be based on any respect of persons It would not or classes,. but on municipal considerations alone and regard to the welfare of all classes within the parti cular territory or jurisdiction". This Court has also repeatedly held that classifiotion might properly be made on if tbot enactment. was germane Having the conditions locality, we have no tenants vary legislation hesitation tricted be held on this ground alone to a portion of a Sate cannot to contravene article 14. fact that the purposes of territorial basis that ·a tenancy from locality in holding regard The second ground urged tion that article 14 has been mination must being taken up only with reference to portions of in support of the conten that discri infringed the settlement of rent result from 1955 Slwi Killla Siat/t ..totltas v. TltlSlllU of ~""" 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS '5'51 contention. the rent rate is to be fixed on the Act applies and not to the whole of area to which the basis of it, because the average of the ten years preceding the settlement; and if the proceedings arc started for different areas in different rates on different dates, that might results being fixed, and that would make for inequality such as is prohibited by article 14. We are unable to agree Settlement operations can be technical conducted only by a specialised staff having administrative experience, knowledge might be beyond the State to under the capacity of the whole area at one and the same time. To accede the contention of the petitioners would, from carrying on settlement operations· It was held by this Court in Bi'swambhar Singh v. The State of Orissa and in Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Raia others(1) and that a provision authorising the taking over sthan(2) of estates on different dates was not repugnant to arti cle 14, ,md those decisions would apply to the present case as well. The contention that the impugned provisions are in contravention of article 14 must, therefore, be rejected. in effect, be to prevent the States the principle of provision they deprive the previous section 82 that in determining It is then contended that the provisions in question are repugnant to article 19 ( 1) ( f) of the Constitution, landlords of their right to realise because rents from the tenants freely and without hindrance, and are an encroachment on their right to hold pro perty. The the Settle the average col ment Officer should, lection consideration abnormal years as notified by the Gov ernment was reduce sion of his rights to the property. We are unable to agree with fundamental right which a citizen has to hold and enjoy property im ports only a right to recover reasonable rent when the lands are cultivated by a tenant, and therefore, :i fix fair and equitable legislation whose object this contention. The particularly attacked ten years, exclude the rent payable landlord and an as a device to the (I) [195+] S.C.R. 842, 845. (2) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 303. 16--83 S. C. India/59. 1955 Shri Kishan Singh and olkns v. The Stal< of Rajasthan and others f' lnkalarama ,War]. 1 ' 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] to invade in section 82(1)(a) right. The con rent cannot be said tention the provision the Gazette should be abnoxmal years as notified is calcu in determining average collections excluded rent, and is reduce therefore unreason is unfounded, because a declaration that a year abnormal is made not only when there are bumper crops but also when the yield is very low, and the pro is intended equally for the benefit of the tenant vision and of this kind is usual in all tenancy is nothing un reasonable or unfair about it. the landlord. A provision of legislation, and into operation to Article 19(1)(f) from a date earlier than year and even retrospectively It was next contended-and this was the conten tion most pressed on us-that section 86 is bad as it confers on the Settlement Officer a power to bring the rent rates succeeding from a date the settlement, and that such a power was repugnant to both article 19(1) (f) and aricle 31(2). The argument with reference that section 86 is an encroachment on the rights of a to hold property, and can be valid only if it person falls within article 19(5), it is only a law of a regulatory character is protected by article 19 there could be regulation only with reference (5), to be exercised to rights in future, and giving retrospective operation is consequently outside article 19(5). This contention rests on an assumption for which there is no basis. The question whether a law is valid under article 19(5) can arise only when there is a viobtion of the fundamental right declared the right in article 19(1) (f), and to hold property imports, as we have held it does, only a right to re reasonable from cultivating right cannot be held to have been invaded by a law rent, even when it is retrospective fixing is reasonable with in operation. .reference the settlement, it must be reas0!lable for the period prior to it as well, and if is not an encroachment on rights of th1t the future-and is conceded-it cannot be an encroa.chment as regards to a period subsequent the holder as regards the settlement reasonable tenants, that a If the 1955 Shri Kishan Sinzh and others v. TM State of Rqjasthan snd others Vmkatarama A»arJ. 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 539 therefore, of the question the past. A consideration, whether a law under article 19(5) should be regula tory, and whether a law with retrospective operation could be said to be regulatory would be wholly irrele vant for the purpose of the present controversy. rights. regulates the contention tenant is not one which to article 31(2) retrospective operation, The argument in support of is repugnant it gives landlord of section 86 is that to the it de extent the right to rent which had prives accrued prior to the settlement, and is taking property without payment of compensation. But the relation is well settled that a law which of landlord with his property within article 31(2), even though it has In Thak.ur Jagannath effect of reducing his Baksh Singh v. United Provinces( 1 the question 3rose ), for decision whether the provisions of Act XVII of 1939, United Provinces, under which the rent payable to a landlord became diminished were obnoxious section 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935. they were not It was held by the Federal Court the Privy and in affirming Council in Thakur Jagannath Baksh Singh v. United Provinces(2) observed: "The appellant express India Act. Thus he relies sions of on section 299 of that no per son shall be deprived of his property in British India save by authority of law, and that neither the Federal nor a Provincial Legislature shall have power to make the compulsory acquisition of purposes save on the basis of provid land for public ing for compensation. But present case lation. To regulate landlord and tenant and thereby diminish rights, hitherto exercised by the landlord in connection with his land, is different from compulsory acquisition of the land". there is no question of confiscatory this decision on appeal, the Act which provides the Government of the payment of relations of authorising on c_ertain relies It was finally urged that section 86 in so far as it (I) (1943] 6 IU.J. 55; A.LR. 1943 F.C. 29. (2) [19-!6] L.R. 73 I.A. 123. .: !9S5 Slrl Eislui~ Sifl(h """Oihlit v. Thi Stole ef Rqjasl/um """ olh<n vw.iar dJ11•~ :,: SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] decision in support of in civil courts. tenant". Under and uncontrolled discretion, landlord habitually the Act, the Court of Wards ;m estate "if a the Settlement Officer to give conferred authority on to the rent rates was bad, be retrospective operation to his il!at authority was l:/le !!Xercise of the Act arbitrary no rules and prescribed no conditions under laid down which the discretion had to be exercised, and that the in those terms must be held to be un power conferred in Thakur Raghubir constitutional. The ) was Singh v. Court of Wards, Aimer and another( 1 relied on, this contention. There, the question was as to the validity of a power conferred to take over the management infringes right of a the decision whether the condition aforesaid was satisfied depended the subjective satisfaction of the Chief Commis to be ques sioner, apd that was final and not liable It was held that a power which tioned could be exercised at the absolute discretion of authority was an encro:ichment on rights of a citizen to hold property under article 19(1) (f) and it was not saved by article 19(5). But, in the present case, section 86 of the Act expressly lays down if a Settlement Officer decides to bring rates into following 1st operation from a date earlier is no force in of July, the contention lay down under what circumstances such an order could be the thing requires passed, because the very nature of that a large discretion should be left the authority. is not necessarily arbitrary. Discretion which It was said that under section 233 of the Act the civil courts are debarred from enquiring the reason ableness of the order; but that is because matters con cerning revenue and settlement are within the exclu sive jurisdiction of revenue courts, and under section 62 of revisional jurisdiction over all orders passed in connection with settlement. We the power conferred on the Settlement Officer to fix an earlier date for giv to the rent rate is reasonable and valid, ing operation it must be for reasons. There that section 86 the Board of Revenue has does not is wide the Act, (1) [1953] S.C.R. 1049. • Shri Klihan Singli /llUl lllltds v. TM Stille ef ilJJJflltltan °"' others V enkalarama ..tyyar J. 1955 S1pumber27 2S,C.lt SUPREME COUllT REPOR'I'S 541 landlord. invades no fundamental rights of 1!155 For the reasons scheme embodied not transgress any of and is valid. given above, we must hold that the the Act docs limit:rtions, in sections 81 to 86 of the Constitutional In the result, the petitions are dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs. STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER v. K. M. RAJAGOPALAN Indian [VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SINHA and }AFAR IMAM JJ·] Independence Act, 1947 (10 and 11 Geo. VI, C. 30) s. 10(2) (a)-The India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947- Article 7(1)-Inde.pendence, Conferral of-Automatic and legal termi nation of service-Persons holding civil posts in India-Previous to Independence-Whether deemed to have been appointed and continue in service after Independence-Government of India Act, 1935, ss. 240 (2) and 247. The respondent was recruited to the Indian Civil Service by open competition in 1936 and joined duty in the Province of Madras in October 1937. Since then he was serving under the Government of Madras in various capacities, his last office being Sub-Collector of Dindigal. He went on leave in June 1947. While on leave he received a letter from the Government of India asking him whether he was willing to continue in the service of the Government after the then contemplated transfer ot power from the British Government to the Dominion of India on the 15th August, 1947. He sent a reply ex pressing his willingness to continue in service. On 9th August, 1947 he received a letter from the Government of Madras dated 7th August, 194 7 signed by the Chief Secretary thereof stating that it w.as de cided not to retaip his services from and after the 15th August, 1947, and that his services would be terminated with effect from the after noon of the 14th August, 1947. The respondent filed a suit against the State of Madras and the Union of India for a declaration that the order issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of· Madras on the 7th August, 1947 purporting to terminate his services was null, void and inoperative and that he should be deemed to continue in service. The High Court granted the declaration prayed for accepting the respondent's con tention that the order terminating his service was in violation of the