MAHARAJA SHRI GAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order to the non -petitioners declaring (1) that Section 7A(i) and (ii) and Section 33 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate (Amendment) Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as Act No. 15 of 1975, are invalid and ultra -vires the Constitution; (2) for quashing the impugned notice dated April 5, 1975 and (3) for restraining the non -petitioners from taking possession of any part of the petitioner's land in exercise of the powers Under Section 9A without giving an adequate notice to him to show cause against such action

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to writ petition may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner's father Maharaja Shri Hanwant Singh Ruled the former State of Jodhpur. After the formation of the Union of India on August 15, 1947, Maharaja Hanwant Singh, father of the petitioner, entered into a covenant for integration of his Jodhpur State with other States forming the present State of Rajasthan. Under Article 12 of the Covenant it was provided that the Ruler of each covenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to him on the date of handing over the administration of the State to the Pramukh of the former Rajasthan State or, as the case may be. to the Raj Pramukh of the United States of Rajasthan under this covenant. Accordingly, a list of the private properties was prepared by the father of the petitioner and the list was approved by the Rajasthan Government and the Central Government and was sent to petitioner's father under letter of Shri V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, Government of India, No. F 4(5) - -R/49 dated 24th March, 1949. Thereafter, the petitioner's father died on January 25, 1952. As the petitioner was a minor, aged about 5 years, the Government of India appointed Thakur Jaikrit Singh as Administrator of the properties of the petitioner during his minority. Thakur Jaikrit Singh sold agricultural properties as well as urban plots of land in the course of his management to meet the financial needs of the family of the petitioner which were caused on account of liabilities left by the petitioner's father. The details of the transfers made by Thakur Jaikrit Singh are mentioned in Annexures 3 and 4 to 12. The petitioner after attaining majority, began to look after his properties. On April 6, 1964, the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estates Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, received the assent of the President of India and was published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra on April 13, 1964. After coming into force of this Act, the Rajasthan Government in exercise of its powers under Section 7 of the Act issued a notification dated August 11, 1964, published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV(c) ordinary dated August 13, 1964, appointing the 1st day September, 1964, as the date for the acquisition and vesting in the State Government all the estates of the land owners situated anywhere in Rajasthan. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification proceedings were started by the Government of Rajasthan to acquire the assets of the various Ex -Rulers of Rajasthan. The provisions of the Aci were, however, challenged on behalf of the petitioner by way of a writ petition in the High Court by Thakur Jaikrit Singh, attorney of the petitioner's mother on the ground that they were violative of Article 19(1)(f) and Articles 31 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The other Fx -Rulers of the covenanting States also filed writ petitions challenging the vires of the said Act. The writ petitions were decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.P. Tyagi (as he then was) by his judgment dated December 15, 1969. Under the said judgment, Chapters IV and V of the Act regarding acquisition and vesting of land and payment of compensation to the Ex -Rulers were declared ultra -vires the Constitution under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 thereof, but Chapters II and III of the Act regarding liability of estates to pay land revenue and acquisition of Khatedari rights in the lands cultivated by tenants were held to be valid. The State Govornment as well as the petitioners, who filed the writ petitions, felt aggrieved by the judgment and filed Special Appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated December 16, 1969. The Special Appeals filed by both the parties were admitted by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and stay orders were passed finally after hearing both the parties. In the petitioner's Special Appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, passed a stay order on March 9, 1970, restraining the State Government from recovering any land revenue of the lands which were in possession of the petitioner. These special appeals are still pending and, therefore, no vesting of the estates has taken place in the eye of law, because the vesting order was declared ultra -vires. Meantime, the Rajasthan Government amended the Act by promulgating on Ordinance on January 26, 1975. The Ordinance was, late, on, replaced by Act No. 15 of 1975. By way of this amendment certain defects pointed out Hon'ble Tyagi, J. were sought to be removed with retrospective effect by inserting a provision to the effect that the Amendment Act shall be deemed to have come into force on April 13, 1964.

(3.) IN support of his writ petition, Maharaja Gaj Singh put in his affidavit and produced several documents. The writ petition was admitted by, this Court on May 7, 1975 and notices of admission were issued to the non -petitioners. On behalf of the non -petitioners a written reply was filed to the writ petitioner's where in it was alleged that the Act, as amended by Act No. 15 of 1975, is an Act relating to aggrarian reforms and so no provisions of the Act or an action taken thereunder can be challenged in view of the provisions of Articles 31A and 31C of the Constitution. It was further stated in the written reply that the alleged transfers of of land made by the petitioner are collusive and effected to circumvent the provisions of the Act, because most of the sale -deeds are in favour of the, close relations. It was further urged that the impugned notice issued by the Collector does not contravene any fundamental right of the petitioner and no question of violation of the principles of natural justice does arise in view of the fact that the Legislature excluded giving of show cause, notice under Section 9A of the Act No. 15 of 1975. In short, all the contentions made in the writ petition were denied in the written reply on behalf of the State Government and it was further prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with costs. In support of the written reply, Mata Dean Sharma Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Land Reforms) Department, but in his affidavit.