Skip to content


Sukh Pal Vs. Rajasthan Revenue Board, Jaipur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appln. No. 189 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Raj169
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 213 and 385; ;Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 - Sections 1(3)
AppellantSukh Pal
RespondentRajasthan Revenue Board, Jaipur and ors.
Appellant Advocate A.S. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Respondent Advocate R.A. Gupta, Govt. Adv. and; R.C. Vyas, for Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - it is agreed that the first meeting of the legislative assembly of rajasthan took place in march, 1952. a bare reading of article 213 makes it clear that that article becomes applicable only to those states where there was a legislative assembly, or tooth houses of legislature, as the case may be, or in the case of states like rajasthan where there was no legislative assembly after such legislative assembly was constituted......for the first time in march, 1952, in rajasthan, and this notification was not placed before the legislative assembly. it is also urged that the notification purports to have been issued in the exercise of the power given by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the ordinance no, 9 of 1949, and if so, it became a legislation by delegated authority.3. the notification does not say that it had been issued in exercise of the power given by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the ordinance, in fact, sub- section (3) of section 1 does not purport to grant any power to the raj pramukh. that sub-section declares, in the first place, the period for which the ordinance shall remain in force, and by way of caution mentions that the period may be extended by the rajpramukh. but the extension, if any, by.....
Judgment:

Bapana, J.

1. In this petition the validity of the Notification. No. F. 1 (2) Rev./50, dated 14-6-1951, is challenged.

2. His Highness the Rajpramukh promulgated an Ordinance to provide for the protection of tenants from ejectment from their holdings on. 21-6-1949, as the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance 1949 (Ordinance No. 9 of 1949), in exercise of the power conferred upon His Highness the Rajpramukh by para. (3) of Article 10 of the Covenant by which the State of Rajasthan was formed. In Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Ordinance it was laid down that the Ordinance

'shall come into force at once and shall remain, in force for a period of two years unless this period is further extended by the Rajpramukh, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette.' In the Gazette of 18-6-1951, (Part IV-A, Vol. 3: No. 55), the following Notification was published

'GOVERNMENT OP RAJASTHAN

REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

'NOTIFICATION.

Jaipur, June 14, 1951.

No. F. 1 (2) Rev./50.--In pursuance of Subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (No. 9 of 1949), His Highness the Rajpramukh is pleased to extend the period for which the said Ordinance shall remain in force for a further term, of two years with effect from the 21st of June, 1951.

By Order of

His Highness the Rajpramukh,

S.W. Shiveshwarkar,

Chief Secretary to Government.'

The validity of this Notification is challenged, It is contended for the petitioner that after the coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Rajpramukh could only promulgate an Ordinance, as provided by Article 213 of the Constitution, in which case certain formalities mentioned in para. (2) of Article 213 had to be followed. It is urged that the Legislature met for the first time in March, 1952, in Rajasthan, and this Notification was not placed before the Legislative Assembly. It is also urged that the Notification purports to have been issued in the exercise of the power given by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Ordinance No, 9 of 1949, and if so, it became a legislation by delegated authority.

3. The Notification does not say that it had been issued in exercise of the power given by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Ordinance, In fact, Sub- section (3) of Section 1 does not purport to grant any power to the Raj Pramukh. That sub-section declares, in the first place, the period for which the Ordinance shall remain in force, and by way of caution mentions that the period may be extended by the Rajpramukh. But the extension, if any, by the Rajpramukh would only be possible, if there was any authority in the Rajpramukh at the time the extension was to be made. On the date, when the Notification of 14-6-1951, was made the Constitution was in force; but the Legislative Assembly, which was the only House provided for Rajasthan, had not been constituted. Under Article 385, therefore, the same authority, which functioned as the legislative authority prior to the, Constitution, continued to exercise legislative powers, and under Article 10 of the Covenant, the Rajpramukh was vested with legislative powers.

4. Learned counsel argued that Article 385 was not applicable to Rajasthan, and did not, in any case, empower the Rajpramukh to exercise legislative powers, as the body or authority functioning Immediately before the commencement of the Constitution as the Legislature of the corresponding 'Indian State' was only authorised to exercise andperform the duty conferred by the provisions of the Constitution on the House of the Legislature of the State. It was argued that the words 'Indian States' could only refer to the various Covenanting States, some of which had Legislatures under the various laws of those States. The Rajasthan State was constituted on 7-4-1949, and the Constitution came into force on 26-1-1950. On the date of the commencement of the Constitution the individual States had merged into the State of Rajasthan, and the Rajasthan State was the Indian State referred to in Article 385 of theConstitution. His Highness the Rajpramukh was, therefore, fully empowered to function as the legislative authority in Rajasthan until the constitution and meeting of the first session of the Legislative Assembly.

It is agreed that the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan took place in March, 1952. A bare reading of Article 213 makes it clear that that Article becomes applicable only to those States where there was a Legislative Assembly, or tooth Houses of Legislature, as the case may be, or in the case of States like Rajasthan where there was no Legislative Assembly after such Legislative Assembly was constituted. As mentioned earlier, the Legislative Assembly in Rajasthan was constituted in 1952.

5. The confusion seems to have arisen by the faulty language or the form in which the Notification of 14-6-1951, was published. This Notification could have been framed in a more appropriate language or form so as to make it appear that it was a piece of legislation by the Rajpramukh under Article 385 of the Constitution. That defect, however, does not detract from the value which is to be attached to the Notification itself when it was promulgated by the Rajpramukh in exercise of the power which was vested in him. In our opinion the extension of the Ordinance notified by the said Notification was a valid piece of legislation made by His Highness the Rajpramukh.

6. Certain other minor points have been mentioned in the petition challenging the orders of the Anti-ejectment Officer, Bayana, and the Rajasthan Revenue Board; but these have not been argued at all.

7. The petition is, therefore, rejected. We do not allow any costs to the Government, as the learned Government Advocate was not at all prepared in this case. The petitioner, however, will pay costs to respondents Nos. 4 and 5, which are assessed at Rs. 50/-.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //