STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RANNOJIRAO SHINDE IN C A NO 1730 OF 1966 2 KRISHNARAO SHINDE IN C A NO 1731 OF 1966

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the courtwas delivered by

(2.) IN these connected appeals by certificates thequestion that arises for decision is whether the MadhyaPradesh Abolition of Cash Grants Act of 1963 (Act No. XVI of1963) is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution.The respondents in these appeals were entitled to receivecash grants from the government of Madhya Pradesh. Theimpugned Act abolished such grants but provided for thepayment of certain compensation to the grantees. Therespondents challenged the vires of the Act before the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 21and 22 of 1963, on various grounds. The High court rejectedall the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondentsexcepting one, namely that the Act is ultra vires of Art.19(1) (f) of the Constitution and is not saved by sub-Art.(5) thereof. After obtaining from the High courtCertificates under Art. 133(1)(c), the State of MadhyaPradesh has filed these appeals. The State is challengingthe correctness of the decision of the High court to theextent it went against it. The respondents on their part,in addition to supporting the findings of the High courtwhich are in their favour, relied also on the other pleastaken by them before the High court. As we are of theopinion that the impugned Act is either violative of Art.31(2) or, in the alternative, Art. 19(1) (f) of theConstitution, we have not thought it necessary to go intothe other contentions taken on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) IN these aPpeals we are mainly conceded with the vires of s.3 read with the definition of `cash grant` in s. 2(1).Ifsection 3 read with s. 2(1) is held to be ultra vires of theConstitution, then the whole Act falls to the ground theremaining S. of the Act are merely subsidiary orincidental provisions. Section L7Sup.C.1/68-73:(*) provides that notwithstanding anything' contained inany law custom, usage, sanad or a decree or order of a courtor other authority whatsoever, all cash grants shall bediscontinued and cease to have effect from the commencementof this Act. But the pro thereto makes certain exceptionswith which we am not -concerned in this case. The case ofthe respondents falls within the main-part. They do nothave the benefit of the proviso A cash grant as defined inS. 2(1) (**) includes a grant of-----------------------------`3. Abolition of certain cash grants-(1) Notwithstandinganything contained in any law, custom, usage, sanad or adecree or order of a court or other authority whatsoever,all cash grants shall be discontinued and cease to haveeffect from the commencement of this Act :Provided that where the grantee is a person specified incolumn (1) of the Table below the cash grant may, at theoption of the grantee exercised in such manner, within suchperiod and in such form as may be prescribed, be continuedsubject to the conditions and during the period mentioned inthe corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table. TABLE <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1053_AIR(SC)_1968Html1.htm</FRM> (2) Upon the discontinuance of a cash grant under sub-section (I not be, obligatory on the grantee to perform thefunction or discharge t any attached to such grant`.(**) `2(1)-Cash grant' means a grant of money which isenforceable by the grantee against the State government onthe date -of the coming into force of this Act but does notinclude-(i) a grant of money for- (a) services of Public temples, mosque or church; or(b) worship of public temples, mosque or church; or (c)public temples;(ii)a grant of money to charitable or religiousinstitutions;(iii)a grant of money or Pension or annuity or specialor Perpetual annuity sanctioned under-(a) S. 5.of the central Provinces and Berar Revocation ofland Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 (XXXVII of 1948);(b) S. 77 or S. 81-A of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition ofProprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals Alienated Lands) Act,1950 (1 of 1951);(c) S. 41 of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs andLand Reforms Act, 1952 (XI of 1952);(d) the orders relating to Jagirs in Bhopal' 'IhekamKhusravi, 1949, para 30 read with s.-45-A of the BhopalAbolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (No. X of1953); and(e) sub.S. (2) of S. 160 of the Madhya Pradesh Land RevenueCode, 1959, (20 of 1959);`money which is enforceable by the grantee against the StateGovernment on the date of the coming into force of the Actbut does This not include those ,,rants which arespecifically excluded. definition takes in all the cashgrants whatever may be the nature or origin of those grants.The definitiOn of a cash grant is wide enough to includecash grants sanctioned by ex-Rulers in lieu of Jagirs orother properties resumed or even, en payments agreed to bemade in lieu of loans given to the Rulers. Differentconsiderations may arise if the grants abolished areGratuitous payments, grants in lieu of services to berendered or other resumable grants. But as mentionedearlier, the definition of cash grants in s. 2(1) does notmake, any distinction between the various types of cashgrants. Hence, the said definition will have to stand orfall as a whole, there being no basis for severing some outof the several grants included therein. It is impermissiblefor this court to rewrite that clause and confine thedefinition only to such of the cash grants which thelegislature might be competent to abolish.