Appeals under article 132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated 30th January, 1953, of the Orissa High Court in Original Jurisdiction Cases Nos.
13, 14, 15, 16, 25 and 26 of 1952.
71 to 76 of 1953.
72 of 1953.
May 29.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
It was stated in the statement of objects and reasons that the enhanced agricultural income was necessary for financing various development schemes in the State.
The changes proposed by this Amendment Act were number very material.
At that time Mr. H. K. Mahtab was the Chief Minister of Orissa and this bill was sponsored by him.
The original amended bill was introduced by the then Chief Minister, Mr. H. K. Mahtab, who was in favour of allowing suitable companypensation to expropriated zemin.
V. Narasinga Rao for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The Act thus receives the protection of articles 31 4 and 31A of the Constitution though it was number and companyld number be included in the list of statutes enumerated in the ninth schedule to the Constitution, as referred to in article 31B. The Act, so far as its main features are companycerned, follows the pattern of similar statutes passed by the Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assemblies.
75 of 1953.
Somayya D. Narasaraju and N. Y. Ramdas, with him for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The highest rate was enhanced from 3 annas to 4 annas in the rupee and the highest slab was reduced from Rs.
This, it is said, was wholly untrue for it companyld number be disputed that almost all the persons who came within the higher income group and were primarily affected by the enhanced rates were intermediaries under the Estates Abolition Bill which was at that time before the Select Committee and was expected to become law very soon, and as the legislature had already definitely decided to extinguish this class of intermediaries, it was absurd to say that an increased taxation upon them was necessary for the development schemes.
The facts of the case appear in the judgment.
Narasaraju and A. Krishnaswami N. V. Ramdas, with them for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
Somayya K. B. Krishnamurthi, with him for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA J. MUKHERJEA J. These six appeals arise out of as many applications, presented to the High Court of Orissa, under article 226 of the Constitution, by the proprietors of certain permanently settled estates within the State of Orissa, challenging the companystitutional validity of the legislation known as the Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1952 hereinafter called the Act and praying for mandatory writs against the State Government restraining them from enforcing the provisions of the Act so far as the estates owned by the petitioners are companycerned.
It was reserved by the State Governor for companysideration of the President and the President gave his assent on 23rd January, 1952.
73 of 1953.
76 of 1953.
Patnaik for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
On 8th January, 1950, that is to say, five days after the publication of the Abolition Bill, an amended agricultural income tax bill was published in the official gazette.
71 of 1953.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, and Pitambar Misra, Advocate General of Orissa P. A. Mehta, with them for the respondent.
The impugned Act was introduced in the Orissa State Legislature on the 17th of January, 1950, and was passed by it on the 28th September, 1951.
dars but his successor, who introduced the revised bill, was said to be a champion of the abolition of zemindary rights with little or numbercompensation to the proprietors.
74 of 1953.
Narasaraju N. V. Ramdas, wit him for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
