MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has made a reference for the opinion of Larger Bench according to Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Revenue Act. This has been listed before us and we have heard the Advocate for Thikana Achrol, as also the Government Advocate. The Advocate General was specially asked to address us. We have perused the record.

(2.) THIKANA Achrol of Tehsil Jamua Ramgarh was resumed on 1-7-1954 namely Smt. 2011. Settlement in this THIKANA had been introduced with effect from Smt. 2008. As the year of resumption was 1954, the basic year was 1953 namely Smt. 2010. After the settlement of the THIKANA had been done in Smt. 2008 (equivalent to 1951) the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Review and Validation of Rent Rates Act 1955 subsequently reduced the settlements rates. The revised rates were made applicable with retrospective effect from Smt. 2008 (1951), the year of previous enforcement. For purposes of calculation of compensation, the Jagir Commissioner took the revised rates as his basis and made an award on November 13, 1962.

(3.) THE resumption of jagirs having been done, the State Government was legally committed to compensate the loss incurred by the jagirdars and it stands to reason that the compensation must relate to the value of the jagir at the time it was resumed. THEre is no indication in the Jagir Resumption Act that the legislature ever intended otherwise. In Sec. 6 (a) (1) the language is "the rents assessed on the jagir lands as entered in the revenue records of the village". THE language of other sections makes it clear that this related to the basic year. If the legislature had meant that the Validation of Rent Rates Act was to over-ride this clear provision in the Resumption of Jagirs Act, (appart from the fact whether it had the competence to do so without obtaining the President's assent), which had received the assent of the President, there should have been some indication of it. THEre is none such. A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court page 936 holds that statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking them away are ordinarily prospective, they are retrospective only if by clear words or necessary implication, the legislature has made them retrospective and the retrospective operation will be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made by express words or necessary implication. In 1964 R. R. D, page 324 the High Court of Rajasthan held that once proprietory right in a property is vested, the proprietor could not be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. A clear retrospective operation was struck down as violative of the Constitution. A. I. R. 1959 Patna page 488 holds that a law of the description contemplated in Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution must receive the assent of the President otherwise it is illegal. We have already seen that the Validation Act had been authorised by the Governor only, while the Jagir Resumption Act which contemplated deprivation of property had received the assent of the President. Accordingly, any change in the dispositions made by the Jagir Resumption Act necessarily attracted the assent of the President, A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court page 1080 holds that a person cannot be deprived of his property save by a valid law. A. I. R. 1965 Supreme Court page 190 holds that fixing of compensation for compulsory acquisition of lands notified many years after the date of the market value prevailing on the date on which lignite was discovered is arbitrary. "if the owner is by a Constitutional guarantee protected against expropriation of his property otherwise than a just monetary equivalent it would be impossible to hold that a law which authorises acquisition of land not for its true value but for value frozen on some date anterior to the acquisition, on the assumption that all appreciation in its value since that date is attributable to purposes for which the State may use the land of the same future date, must be regarded as infringing the fundamental right. " "to deny to owner of the land, compensation at rates which justly indemnify him for his loss by awarding him compensation at rates prevailing 10 years before the date on which the Notification under sec. 4 (1) was issued, amounts in the circumstances to a flagrant infringement of the fundamental right of the owner of the land under Art. 31 (2) as it stood, when the Act was enacted. "