226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Act and of the proceedings taken by the respondent State thereunder on the ground, firstly, that the Act was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and that its provisions were unconstitutional and void and, secondly, that even if the Act was intra vires the jagirs held by the petitioners were number jagirs as defined in the Act, and were therefore number liable to be resumed under its provisons.
M. Sikri, Advocate General, for the State of Punjab N. S. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the respondents in all petitions and Civil Appeals .
A number of petitions were thereupon filed in the High Court of Punjab under Art.
82 of 1960 and 148, 168 to 174 and 357 to 361 of 1961.
455 of 1961 .
By their judgment dated May 25, 1959, the learned Judges held that the legislation was within the companypetence of the State, and that it did number companytravence any of the companystitutional provisions.
428, 303, 398, 402, 459 to 462, 421, 472, 473, 475, 490, 503, 509, 519, 520, 555, 590, 710 and 712 of 1958.
453 to 474 of 1961 have been preferred to this Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order date May 25, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No.
This Act came into force on November 14, 1957, and the respondent State then proceeded to take action thereunder for resuming the jagirs.
By their Order dated January 27, 1960, the learned Judges granted leave to appeal to this Court under Art 133 1 a , and pursuant to the same, Civil Appeals Nos.
The companylapse of the Moghul Empire had created a void in the political ,stage of this companyntry, and many were the powers which stepped in with the ambition of establish ing their sovereignty.
39 of 1957 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
82 of 60 and the appellant in C. A. No.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for Intervener No.1 Satinder Singh .
Appeals from the,, judgment and order dated May 25.
50 of 1962 by special leave is also directed against the judgment of the Punjab High Court in a Writ Petition tinder Art.
L. Mehta, for Intervener No.
While the sweeping changes aforesaid were being introduced, the second Sikh War broke out and that ended in the annexation of the Punjab.
1959, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Nos.
453 to 474 of 1961.
February 20.
The British had established their rule and bad extended their dominion up to the Jumna.
347 of 1958.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
WITH Civil Appeals Nos.
AND Civil Appeal No.
The rules for settlement of revenue were made by them, and the actual settlement and companylection of revenue were made under their authority, and out of the companylections the jagirdars were paid their share.
Appeal No.
Some of the jagirdars have also filed petitions in this Court under Art.
50 of 1962.
32 of the Constitution, impugning the Act and the action of the State thereunder on the same grounds as those raised in the appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. The question that rises for our decision in the above writ petitions and appeals is whether certain jagirs in the State of Punjab known as the Cis Sutlej jagir are liable to be resumed under the provisions of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957 Punjab Act No.
2 Raghuvinder Singh and others .
Pursuant to this declaration, the Chiefs were stripped of all their governmental functions and the final denouement took place in 1852 when the British took over the companylection of revenue for the jagir lands.
The origin of these jagirs goes back to 1763.
Achhru Ram and Naunit Lal,for the petitioner in Potn.
Hardev Singh and Y. Kumar, for the petitioers in Petns.
of 61 .
Petition under Art.
454 of 196 I .
R. L. Iyengar, Lakshmi, Chand and I.N.Shroff, for the appellants in C. A. No.
148 of 61 and the appellants in C. As.
Nos 453 and 456 of 1961 .
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, K. L. Gosain, R. L. Iyengar, Lakshmi Chand and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants in C.As.
457 to 474.
N. Shroff, for the petitioners in Petn.
50 of 62 .
L. Gosain, B. R. L. Iyengar, Lakshmi Chand and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants I in C. A. No.
