The proceedings were print ed on the 21st June, 1950, and were signed by the Speaker on the 1st October, 1950.
No motion of a dilatory nature was tabled and as a matter of fact there was numberopposition whatsoever to the passing of the Bill.
Petitioner in Petition No.
The Act, as already stated, received the assent of the President on the 22nd January, 1951, and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on the 26th January, 1951, as Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951.
1022 N. Jog for the petitioner in Petition No.
There were in all 106 estates in Madhya Pradesh as defined in section 2 3 of Act I of 1951 and held by zamindars.
Land revenue in Madhya Pradesh was last assessed under the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, II of 1917.
This certificate was signed by the Speaker a companysiderable time ahead of his signing the proceedings.
The original BiLl that was submitted to the President for his assent was printed on the 29th April, 1950, and it bears on it the certificate of the Speaker dated the 10th May, 1950, stating that the Bill was duly passed by the legislature on the 5th April, 1950.
On the 3rd September, 1946, the Central Provinces and Berar Legislative Assembly passed a resolution for the elimination of intermediaries between the State and the peasant.
The revenue assess ment, viz.,
The omission of this numbere in the proceedings of the legislature has furnished a basis for the argument that the Bill was never passed into law.
The integration actually took place on the 1st January, 1948.
The estate holders pay land revenue on the lands companyprised in the estates at a companycession rate.
This was done without recourse to a settlement.
Finally, the irregularity of procedure,.
166, 228, 230, 237, 245, 246, 257, 268, 280 to 285, 287 to 289, 317, 318 and 487 of 1951 .
tekoli, on the estates was, we are told, en hanced in some places from thirty to fifty per cent.
It was alleged 1023 that the Madhya Pradesh Act, I of 1951, was unconstitutional and void and infringed the fundamental rights of the peti tioner in a variety of ways.
Petitioners in Petitions Nos.
The petitioner in Peti tion No.
After the new rules came into force it was numberlonger the duty of the Speaker to companyfirm the pro ceedings at all.
Eleven of these applications came up for hearing before a Full Bench of the High Court B.P. Sinha C.J. and Mangalmurthi and Mudholkar JJ.
In 1947, the Central Provinces Land Revenue Estates Act, XXV of 1947, was enacted.
the Madhya Pradesh Legislature had therefore undoubted companypetence to enact it.
Seven of these are by zamindars from Madhya Pradesh who are owners of estates.
The circulation motion was negatived on the 3rd April, 1950, and the Bill was discussed clause by clause and the clauses were passed between the 3rd of April and the 5th of April.
282 was ruler of a State Jashpur and the petition companycerns his private properties.
The trend of the speeches was of a laudatory character, each member hailing the Bill as a piece of great reform in the Madhya Pradesh land system.
Soon after the passing of this 1024 resolution several laws were enacted, it is said, with a view to achieve this result, the impugned Act being the last of that series.
246 also owns certain malguzari villages.
On the 1st August, 1949, the States were merged in the Madhya Pradesh.
The land assessment on malguzari villages was, it is alleged, raised to 75 per cent.
In 1948 came the Central PrOvinces and Berar Revocation of Exemptions Act, XXXVII of 1948, making persons exempted from payment of land revenue liable for it.
The opposition was in a hopeless minority.
The report of the proceedings of the5th April, 1950, does number companytain the numbere that the motion that the Bill be passed into law was carried.
of the full jama and in others from forty to sixty per cent.
In all these fifteen petitions, Mr. Swami appeared for the petitioners.
On the 11th October, 1949, the impugned Act was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly.
On the 5th April, 1950, the member in charge of the Bill moved as follows Speaker Sir, I number move that the Central Provinces Berar Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Bill, 1949 No.
In 1939 there was an adhoc increase in the amount of tekoli by the Central Provinces Revision of Land Revenue Estates Act, I of 1939.
from 45 to 50 per cent.
In the same year was enacted the Central Provinces Land Revenue Revision Mahals Act, XXVI of 1947.
of malguzari assets.
On the 9th March, 1951, i.e., before the vesting date, he presented the present application to this companyrt for the issue of appropri ate writs against the Government prohibiting it from taking possession of his properties.
The payment is technically called tekoli.
26 of 1951.
317 of 1951.
280 and 285 they are mafidars.
64 of 1949 as companysidered by the House be passed into law.
The Act received the assent of the President of India on the 22nd January, 1951, and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on the 26th January, 1951, as Act I of 1951.
May 2, 5, The judgment of the CHIEF JUSTICE print ed at pp.
For a proper appreciation of the ground on which the validity of the Act is being challenged, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and to state the facts which led to this enactment.
Madhya Pradesh is a companyposite State, companyprising the Central Provinces, Berar and the merged territories.
1950, by the Assembly.
The petitioner in Petition No.
283, 284 and 257 are Ilakadars and in Petitions Nos.
Land is also held on a variety of subordinate tenures by absolute occupancy tenants, occupancy tenants, ryots, thikedars, mafidars, ilaqadars, etc.
delivered sepa rate judgments.
281 is a Thikedar.
It was referred to a Select Committee on the 15th October, 1949 the Select Committee reported on the 9th March, 1950, the report was published on the 17th March, 1950, and was taken into companysideration on the 29th March.
By an agreement of merger made between the rulers of States and the Dominion of India dated the 15th December, 1947, certain territories which at one time were under the Indian States Agency and were held by these rulers were integrated with the Dominion.
and were, on 9th April, 1951, dismissed.
Therefore, the purported companyfirmation of the proceedings by the Speaker on 1st October, 1950, cannot be given any legal validity and the argument founded on authentication under defunct rule 115 2 must lose all its force.
Petitions Nos.
The Act is divided into eleven chapters and three schedules.
318 of 1951.
L. Shivde Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh , with P. Naik for the respondent.
Against the companystitutionality of this Act a number of petitions were made in the High Court of Nagpur but they were all dismissed by that companyrt on the 9th April, 1951, while this petition along with some others was pending in this Court.
On the 30th March, 1950, the opposition moved for the circu lation of the Bill.
It may be mentioned here that the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh also passed legislation for the 1044 abolition of zamindaries in their respective States and the validity of those legislations was also companytested by the proprietors affected thereby.
Most of the lands are owned by malguzars of mahals in the status of Malkan cabza The land system prevailing in Madhya Pradesh is malgu zari except in certain areas where the ryotwari system is in vogue , the malguzar being an intermediary between the State and the tiller.
Some members ex pressed the opinion that the provisions of the Act did number go far enough, others thought that the provisions as to companypensation should have been more liberal, but there was numbere who was for rejecting the Bill as it stood.
The facts which gave rise to these petitions and the arguments of companynsel are stated in the judgment.
A number of applica tions were made under article 226 of the Constitution to the Madhya Pradesh High Court by or on behalf of different persons variously described as Zamindars or Malguzars or Proprietors of alienated villages praying for the issue of appropriate writs against the State of Madhya Pradesh pro hibiting them from proceeding under the Act the validity of which was challenged on a variety of grounds.
as the date of vesting of the estates under section 3 of the Act.
i.e., revenue farmer of three villages.
MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA, DAS and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.
On the 5th April, 1950, the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly enacted an Act called the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act.
64 of 1949 as companysidered by the House be passed into law, 1025 A number of speeches were made at the third reading stage.
Somayya V. N. Swami, with him for the petitioner in Petition No.
The petitioner and his ancestors have been owning and enjoying these properties in full proprietary right for several generations past.
The Honble the Speaker saidMotion moved, that the Central Provinces Berar Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Bill, 1949 No.
By a numberification in a gazette extraordinary issued on the 27th January, 1951, the Madhya Pradesh Government fixed 31st March, 1951.
Petitioner in Petition No.
N. Swarni for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.
893 916 supra companyers these cases also.
228, 230, 237, 245, 246, 280 to 285 of 1951, 257 and 287 to 289 of 1951.
N. Mukherjee for the petitioner in Petition No.
487 of 1951.
The petitioner thus was to lose his estate and lands on the 31st March, 1951.
166 of 1951.
S. Bindra P.S. Safeer, with him for the petitioner in Petition No.
B. Asthana for the petitioners in Petition No.
