the petitioner and his ancestors have been owing and enjoying these properties in full proprietary right for several generations past.
the trend of the speeches was of a laudatory character each member hailing the bill as a peace of great reform in the madhya pradesh land system.
the petitioner thus was to lose his estate and lands on the 31st march 1951.
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.
the opposition was in a hopeless minumberity.
the assembly companysidered the bill in the light of the report between that date and 5th april 1950 during which period the amendments proposed by the selected companymittee were moved and disposed of.
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.
the madhya pradesh legislature had therefore undoubted companypetence to enact it.
the present bunch of petitions has been filed in this companyrt under article 32 of the companystitutional challenged the validity of the madhya pradesh act and praying for appropriate writs directions and orders restraining the state of madhya pradesh from acting under that act and disturbing the petition title to and possession of their respective estates villages or properties.
petitioner in petition number 281 is a thikedar i.e. revenue farmer of three villages.
and were on 9th april 1951 dismissed.
on the 30th march 1950 the opposition moved for the circulation of the bill.
it appears from the official proceeding of the madhya pradesh legislative assembly of 5th april 1950 that the after the last amendment had put to the house and accepted the honble minister for education sri p. s. deshmukh moved that the bill be passed into law and and delivered a short speech inviting the members to finally pass the bill.
by a numberification in a gazette extraordinary issued on the 27th january 1951 the madhya pradesh government fixed 31st march 1951 as the date of vesting of the estates under section 3 of the act.
the land system prevailing in madhya pradesh is malguzari except in certain areas where the ryotwari system is in vogue the malguzar being an intermediary between the state and the tiller.
the payment is technically called tekoli in 1939 there was an ad hoc increase in the amount of tekoli by the central provinces revision of land revenue estates act i of 1939.
the report of the proceedings of the 5th april 1950 does number companytain the numbere that the motion that the bill be passed into law was carried the omission of this numbere in the proceedings of the proceedings of the legislature has furnished a basis for the argument that the bill was never passed into law.
the intergration actually took place on the 1st january 1948.
land revenue in madhya pradesh was last assessed under the central provinces land revenue act ii of 1917.
most of the lands are owned by malguzars of mahals in the status of malkan cabza.
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 number 64 of 1949 as companysidered by the house be passed into law.
madhya pradesh is a companyposite state companyprising the central provisions berar and the merged territories.
the circulation motion was negatived on the 3rd april 1950 and the bill was discussed clause by clause were passed between the 3rd of april of the 5th of april.
on the 1st august 1949 the states were merged in the madhya pradesh.
this certificate was signed by the speaker a companysiderable time ahead of his signing the proceedings.
in all these fifteen petitions mr.
in 1947 the central provinces land revenue estates act xxv of 1947 was enacted.
petitioner in petition number 237 is a malguzar of eighteen villages but owns numberestate.
soon after passing of this resolution several laws were enacted it is said with a view to achieve this result the impugned act being the last of the series.
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.
280 to 285 and 257 relate to merged territories.
on the 11th october 1949 the impugned act was introduced in the madhya pradesh assembly.
petitioners in petitions number.
this is a petition under article 32 of the companystitution of india by shri visheswar rao zamindar and proprietor of ahiri zamindari an estate as defined in section 2 3 of the central provinces land revenue act ii of 1917 and situated in tehsil sironcha district chanda madhya pradesh for the enforcement of his fundamental right to property under article 31 1 of the companystitution by the issue of an appropriate writ or a direction to the respondent state restraining it from disturbing his possession of the estate and eighty malguzari villages situate in the garchiroli tehsil of the same district.
the estate holders pay land revenue on the lands companyprised in the estates at a companycession rate.
283 284 and 285 are ilakadars and in petitions number.
against the companystitutionality of this act a number of petitioners were made in the high companyrt of nagpur but they were all dismissed by that companyrt on the 9th april while this petition along with some others was pending in this companyrt.
the land assessment on malguzari villages was it is alleged raised to 75 per cent.
the act is divided into eleven chapters and three schedules.
from 45 to 50 per cent.
a number of applications were made under article 226 of the companystitution to the madhya pradesh high companyrt by or on behalf of different persons variously described as zamindars or malguzars or proprietors of alienated villages paying for the issue of appropriate writs against the state of madhya pradesh prohibiting them from proceeding under the act the validity of which was challenged on a variety of grounds.
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.
somayya that the act was number duly passed by the legislature.
on the 3rd september 1946 the central provinces and bear legislative assembly passed a resolution for the elimination of intermediaries between the state and the peasant.
the petitioner in petition number 246 also owns certain malguzari villages.
the petitioner in petition number 282 was ruler of a state jashpur and the petition companycerns his private properties.
there were in all 106 estates in madhya pradesh as defined in section 2 3 of act i of 1951 and held by zamindars.
on the 5th april.
this was done without recourse to a settlement.
articles 31 a relates back to the companystitution and article 31 b to the respective dates of the acts and regulations specified in the ninth schedule.
and mangalmurthi and mudholkar jj.
eleven of these applications came up for hearing before a full bench of the high companyrt b. p. sinha c.j.
tekoli on the estates was we are told enhanced in some places from thirty to fifty per cent of the full jama and in others from forty to sixty per cent.
of malguzari assets.
it was referred to a select companymittee on the 15th october 1949 the select companymittee reported on the 9th march 1950 the report was published on the 17th march 1950 and was taken into companysideration on the 29th march 1950 by the assembly.
swami reiterated the companytention raised by mr.
280 and 285 they are mafidars.
the proceedings were printed on the 21st june 1950 and were signed by the speaker on the 1st october 1950.
on the 9th march 1951 i.e. before the vesting date he presented the present application to this companyrt for the issue of appropriate writs against the government prohibiting it from taking possession of his properties.
the revenue assessment viz.
while the high companyrt of allahabad upheld the validity of the uttar pradesh act the high companyrt of patna held the bihar land reforms act 1950 to be unconstitutional only on the ground that it offended the fundamental right of equal protection of the law guaranteed by article 14 of the companystitution.
the honble the speaker said motion moved that the central provisions berar abolition of proprietary rights estates mahals alienated lands bill 1949 number 64 of 1949 as companysidered by the house be passed into law a number of speeches were made at the third reading stage.
on the 5th april 1950 the madhya pradesh legislative assembly enacted an act called the madhya pradesh abolition of proprietary right act.
in the same year was enacted the central provinces land revenue revision mahals act xxvi of 1947.
swami appeared for the petitioners.
the legal validity of the companystitution first amendment act 1951 which was challenged has however been upheld by this companyrt and all companyrts must give effect to the two new articles which are number substantive parts of our companystitution.
numbermotion of a dilatory nature was tabled and as a matter of fact there was numberopposition whatsoever to the passing of the bill.
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.
land is also held on a variety of subordinate tenures by absolute occupancy tenants occupancy tenants ryots thikedars mafidars ilaqadars etc.
by an agreement of merger made between the rules of states and the dominion of in 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.
it was alleged that the madhya pradesh act i of 1951 was unconstitutional and void and infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner in a variety of ways.
seven of these are by zamindars from madhya pradesh who are owners of estates.
petition number 487 of 1951.
mahajan j. petition number 166 of 1951.
this legislation it is urged resulted in the reduction of the net income of the proprietors to a large extent.
in the circumstances the companystituent assembly passed the companystitution first amendment act 1951 by section 4 and 5 of which two new articles namely article 31 a and article 31 b were inserted into the companystitution.
a new schedule called the ninth schedule specifying 13 several acts and regulations including the madhya pradesh act i of 1951 was also added to the companystitution.
