Full Judgement
Thakur Amar Singhji Vs. State of Rajasthan [1955] INSC 27 (15 April 1955)
VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA MUKHERJEE, BIJAN KR. (CJ) DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
IMAM, SYED JAFFER
CITATION: 1955 AIR 504 1955 SCR (2) 303
ACT:
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (Rajasthan Act VI of 1952)-Validity-Rajpramukh-Competence to enact the law-Covenant of the United State of Rajasthan, arts. VII (3), X (3)-"Ordinance", meaning of-Bill, whether prepared by the Rajpramukh as required by the Constitution Resumption of jagir lands -Legislative competence-Pith and substance of legislation-Acquisition or resumption-Jagir, meaning of-Legislative practice-Implied grant-Legislative grants-Constitution of India, Arts. 14,, 31-A, 31(2), 212A(2), 385, Sch. VII, List II, entries 18, 36-Marwar Land Revenue Act , (XL of 1949), s. 169-Mewar Government Kanoon Mal Act (V of 1947), s. 106-Bhomicharas, Bhomias, Tikanadars, Subeguzars, Mansubdars, holders of other tenures.
HEADNOTE:
The Bill which came to be enacted as the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act was prepared in the Ministerial Department of the Government of Rajasthan. It was approved by the Rajpramukh on 8-2-1952, and reserved for the consideration of the President, who gave his assent to it on 13-2-1952. By notification issued on 16-2-1952, the Act came into force on 18-2-1952. In pursuance of s. 21(1) of the Act, the State of Rajasthan issued notifications resuming the jagirs specified therein, whereupon petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution were filed by the persons aggrieved challenging the validity of the Act before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitions were dismissed and thereupon they filed petitions before the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Act. They contended inter alia that the Rajpramukh had no competence to enact the law, that the Bill was not prepared by the Rajpramakh as required by Art. 212-A(2), that resumption was not one of the topics of legislation enumerated either in the State List or in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and that the Act was therefore ultra vires the powers of the State, that the Act did not provide for adequate compensation nor was there any public purpose involved in it and therefore it contravened Art. 31(2), and that as the Act was discriminatory it contravened Art. 14. There were some special contentions that the Act was not saved by Art. 31-A, because the lands resumed were neither estates nor jagirs nor grants similar to jagirs, inams or muafi and that some of the properties sought to be resumed were not jagirs as defined in the Act and therefore the notifications under s. 21 of the Act in so far as they related to them were illegal.
39 304 Held that, (1) the Rajpramukh was competent to enact the impugned law, under Art. 385, as he was the authority functioning immediately before the commencement of the Constitution as the legislature of Rajasthan under art. X (3) of the Covenant of the United State of Rajasthan. The expression "Ordinance" in art. X (3) must be construed as meaning "Law". Article VII (3) of the Covenant has reference to the executive power which the Rulers had to resume jagirs and does not operate as a restriction on the legislative powers under art. X (3). The Legislature of the corresponding State mentioned in Art. 385 refers not to the legislature under the Constitution, but to the body or the authority which was functioning as the legislature of the State before the commencement of the Constitution and under Art. X (3) of the Covenant of the United State of Rajasthan, that authority was the Rajpramukh.
Article 385 does not require that that authority should have had absolute and unlimited powers of legislation. If it was functioning as the legislative authority before the Constitution, it would, under the article, have all the powers conferred by the Constitution on the House or Houses of legislature of the States.
(ii) Article 212-A(2) which provides that the Rajpramukh should prepare the Bill, does not require that he should himself draft it. It is sufficient if he decides questions of policy which are of the essence of the legislation. It is open to the Rajpramukh to adopt a Bill prepared by his ministers and the only matter that will have to be considered is whether in fact he did so. There is no provision in Art. 212-A(2) for the Rajpramukh approving of a Bill and an endorsement of approval on the Bill prepared in the ministerial department must therefore signify its adoption by him. When the Bill is produced with an endorsement of approval under his signature, the question must be held to be concluded and any further discussion about the legislative or executive state of mind of the Rajpramukh must be ruled out as inadmissible.
(iii) The impugned Act is not ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature as the subject-matter of thelegislation is in substance acquisition of properties falling under entry 36 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
Resumption and acquisition connote two different concepts, but whether the impugned Act is one for acquisition of jagirs or for their resumption must be determined with reference to the pith and substance of the legislation, the name given to it by the legislature not being decisive of the matter. The resumption for which the Act provides is not in enforcement of the rights which the Rulers had to resume jagirs in accordance with the terms of the grant or the law applicable to it, but in exercise of the sovereign rights of eminent domain possessed by the State. Under the circumstances, the taking of the properties is in substance acquisition notwithstanding that it is labelled as resumption.
The payment of compensation to the Jagirdars is consistent only with the taking being an acquisition and not resumption in 305 accordance with the terms of the grant or the law applicable to it. Though the legislation also falls under entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, there being an entry 36 dealing with acquisition, it must be held that the Act falls under that entry and is valid.
(iv) The word 'jagir' connoted originally grants made by Rajput Rulers to their clansmen for military services rendered or to be rendered. Later on grants made for religious and charitable purposes and even to non-Rajputs were called jagirs, and both in its popular sense and legislative practice, the word jagir came to be used as connoting all grants which conferred on the grantees rights in respect of land revenue, and that is the sense in which the word jagir should be construed in Art. 31-A.
The object of Art. 31-A was to save legislation which was directed to the abolition of intermediaries so as to establish direct relationship between the State and the tillers of the soil. Construing the word in that sense which would achieve that object in full measure, it must be held that jagir was meant to cover all grants under which the grantees had only rights in respect of revenue and were not tillers of the soil. Maintenance grants in favour of persons who were not cultivators such as members of the ruling family would be jagirs for purposes of Art. 31-A.
(v) Bhomicharas. The Bhomicharas are the representatives of Rajput Rulers who conquered the. country and established their sovereignty over it in the thirteenth century. Later on the Ruler of Jodhpur imposed his sovereignty over the territory but permitted the previous rulers to continue in possession of the lands on payment of an annual sum. The question was whether they held the lands as jagirs.
Held that, there could be a jagir only by grant by the Ruling power but that such a grant need not be express, and could be implied and when the Ruler of Jodhpur imposed his sovereignty over the territory of the Bhomicharas but recognised their possession of the lands, it is as if there was annexation by him and re-grant to them of these lands.
Vajesinghji Joravar Singji and Others v. Secretary of State [(1924) L.R. 51 I.A. 357] and Secretary of State v. Sardar Bustam Khan [(1941) L.R. 68 I.A. 109], referred to.
Though the Bhomicharas enjoyed large powers, their status was only that of subjects. The status of a person must be either that of a sovereign or a subject. There is no tertium quid. The law does not recognise an intermediate status of a person being partly a sovereign and partly a subject. And when once it is admitted that the Bhomicharas had acknowledged the sovereignty of Jodhpur, their status can only be that of a subject.
Even if the Bhomicharas did not prior to the enactment of the Marwar Land Revenue Act XL of 1949 hold the lands as grantees 306 from the State, they must be deemed to have become such grantees by force of s. 169 of the Act which provides that all lands in the State vest in the Maharajah and all proprietary interests therein are deemed to be held under a grant from him. The Bbomicharas bad by long usage and recognition and by the legislative practice of the State come to be recognised as jagirdars and their tenure is a jagir within the intendment of s. 169.
For the purposes of Art. 31-A, it would make no difference whether the grant is made by the sovereign in the exercise of his prerogative right or by the legislature in the exercise of its sovereign rights, Grants which are the creatures of statutes called legislative grants are equally within the operation of that article.
Bhomicharas are, accordingly, within the operation of Art. 31-A.
(vi) The position of Bhumias in Mewar is similar to that of Bhomicharas in Marwar and in addition it was a condition of the terms on which their title to the lands was recognised by the rulers of Chittoor and Udaipur, that they had to render military service when called upon and also pay quit rent. Their title to the lands therefore rested on an implied grant and their tenure would be jagir even in its stricter sense.
Section 27 of the Mewar Government Kanoon Mal Act (V of 1947) enacts that all lands belong to His Highness and that no person has authority to take possession of any lands unless the right is granted by His Highness. Section 106 (1) of the Act declares that a Tikanadar, Jagirdar, Muafidar or Bhumia shall have all such revenue rights in the lands comprised in his jagir, muafi, or Bhom under this Act, as are granted to him by His Highness". The effect of these provisions was to impress on the Bhom tenure the characteristics of a grant.
Article 13, Clause (1) of the Constitution of Mewar provided that, "no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law within the territories of Mewar". It was contended for the petitioners that the impugned Act was void as contravening the above provisions.
Held that, as the authority which enacted the Constitution of Mewar was His Highness, it could be repealed or modified by the same authority, and the impugned Act must be held to have repealed the Constitution to the extent that it was inconsistent with it.
(vii) The Tikanadars of Shekwati got into possession of lands as ijaradars or lessees and were subsequently treated as jagirdars. Their tenure was, if not jagirs, at least other "similar grants" within Art. 31-A. It is included in Schedule I to the impugned Act as item 6.
The nature of the tenures of lands held by Subeguzars, Mansubdars, maintenance holders (Lawazma and Kothrikarch), Tikanadars and of Naqdirazan, Sansan grants, etc., considered, 307 (viii) The Khandela estate was granted in 1836 on a permanent lease. The definition of jagir in s. 2(h) includes the tenures mentioned in Schedule I to the Act and Istimrari tenure is item 2 therein. The question was whether the Istimrar-ijara was within item 2.
Held that, the essential features of Istimrari tenure are that the lands are assessed to a nominal quit rent, and that it is permanent. The amount of Rs. 80,001 fixed as assessment under the deed of 1836 cannot be said to be nominal. The grant is, therefore, not an Istimrari tenure, but a permanent Izara.
(ix) Objections raised as to the validity of the Act on the ground that it did not provide for payment of compensation, that there was no public purpose involved in the resumption and that therefore it contravenes Art. 31(2) or that the provisions of the Act offend Art. 14, are barred by the provisions of Art. 31-A of the Constitution.
Even apart from Art. 31-A, the impugned Act must be held to be supported by public purpose and is not in contravention of Art. 31(2). Nor is there a contravention of Art. 14, as under the Act all jagirs are liable to be resumed, no power having been conferred on the Government to grant exemption.
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga and Others ([1952] S.C.R. 889) and Biswambhar Singh v. The State of Orissa and Others ([1954] S.C.R. 842), referred to.
The true scope of the rule of ejusdem generis is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified and not its reverse, that specific words 'which precede are controlled by the general words which follow.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 354 to 359, 362, 370 to 385, 387 to 469, 471 to 475, 477 to 479) 482 to 486, 488) 490, 491 , 493 to 497, 502, 503, 510, 511 to 521, 525, 527 to 529, 535 to 563, 570, 572 to 575, 577 to 584, 586 to 588, 592 to 595, 597, 600@ 602, 603, 606 to 610, 613 to 619, 624, 626 to 634, 637 to 645, 653, 654, 656 to 659, 661, 662, 668, 672, 675, 679, 684 to 688 of 1954 and I to 14, 17, 20, 21, 25 to 27, 35 to 37, 45, 47, 49, 52, 55 to 57 and 61 to 66 of 1955.
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (O. C. Chatterjee and K. L. Mehta, with him) for 'the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 354, 362,382 to 385, 511 to 516, 519, 537, 308 541, 543 to 547, 550, 553, 556, 558 to 562, 570, 573 to 575, 582 to 584, 587, 588, 593 to 595, 597, 602, 603, 607 to 609, 613, 614, 616 to 619, 626, 628, 631 to 633, 637, 640 to 642, 644, 645, 653, 657 to 659, 661, 662) 6795 684 to 688 of 1954 and 2 to 7, 9 to 14, 21, 25 to 27, 35, 37, 45, 47, 49, 52, 55) 57, 63 and 65 of 1955.
H. L. Mordia and K. L. Mehta for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 55 and 65 of 1955.
Frank Anthony and K. L. Mehta, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 56 and 64 of 1955.
U. M. Trivedi, (K. L. Mehta, with him), for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 615 of 1954 and 20 of 1955.
R. K. Rastogi and K. L. Mehta, for the Petitioner in Petition No. 634 of 1954.
K. L. Mehta, for the Petitioner in Petition No. 36 of 1955.
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (O. C. Chatterjee and Naunit Lal, with him), for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 356 to 359, 370, 372, 373, 374, 376 to 378, 380,, 389, 390, 393 to 400, 415, 4175 463, 469, 482, 484, 521, 563, 577, 578, 586, 592, 606, 610, 627 and 656 of 1954.
Achhru Ram, (Naunit Lal, with him) for the Petitioner in Petition No. 391 of 1954.
Naunit Lal, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 355, 371, 375, 379, 416, 455, 468, 483, 485, 488, 491, 493 to 497, 517, 525, 529, 538, 540, 542 and 551 of 1954.
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (Ganpat Rai, with him), for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 381, 387, 388, 402 to 410, 412, 413, 418 to 423; 425, 426, 428 to 454, 456 to 459, 464 to 466, 477, 478, 486, 503, 510, 520, 548, 552, 557, 572, 580, 600, 624, 639, 668 of 1954 and 8 and 17 of 1955.
N. C. Chatterjee, (Ganpat Rai and S. K. Kapur, 309 with him), for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 462, 536, 549, 579, 630, 638 and 654 of 1954.
U. M. Trivedi, (Ganpat Rai, with him), for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 629, 643, 672 of 1954 and 66 of 1955.
Achhru Ram, (Ganpat Rai, with him), for the Petitioner in Petition No. 424 of 1954.
Frank Anthony and Ganpat Rai, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 401, 414) 460) 5023 518, 535 and 539 of 1954.
S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 411 and 675 of 1954.
R. K. Rastogi and Ganpat Rai, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 427 and 461 of 1954.
O. C. Chatterji and Ganpat Rai, for the Petitioner in Petition No. 62 of 1955.
J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 473, 479, 490, 527, 528, 554 and 581 of 1954 and Nos. 1 and 61 of 1955.
C. L. Aggarwal and Rajinder Narain, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos: 471, 472, 474 and 475 of 1954.
K. P. Gupta, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 467 and 555 of 1954.
S. C. Isaacs, (S. D. Sekhri, with him), for the Petitioner in Petition No. 392 of 1954.
K. S. Hajela, Advocate-General for the State of Rajasthan and G. S. Pathak, (Daulat Ram Bhandari, Porus A. Mehta, P. G. Gokhale and Kan Singh, with them), for the Respondent (State of Rajasthan) in all the petitions.
1955. April 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution impugning the validity of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act No. VI of 1952, hereinafter referred 310 to as the Act. The history of this legislation may be briefly stated. On 20-8-1949 the Government of India appointed a Committee presided over by Sri C. S. Venkatachar to examine and report on the jagirdari and land tenures in Rajputana and Madhya Bharat, the object avowedly being to effect land reforms so as to establish direct relationship between the State and the tillers of the soil and to eliminate all intermediaries between them. By its report dated 18-12-1949 the Committee recommended inter alia the resumption of jagirs and payment of rehabilitation grants in certain cases. (Vide report, page 62). The question of legislation on the subject was taken up by the Government of Rajasthan in 1951, and eventually a Bill called the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Bill was prepared, and on 31-12-1951 it was approved by the Rajpramukh and reserved for the consideration of the President. On 21-1-1952 the President with held his assent from the Bill, and in communicating this decision, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India informed the Rajasthan Government that if certain amendments were made in the Bill as presented and a fresh Bill submitted, the President would be willing to reconsider the matter. In accordance with these suggestions, a fresh Bill was prepared in the Ministerial Department incorporating certain amendments, and it was approved by the Rajpramukh on 8-21952, and reserved for the consideration of the President, who gave his assent to it on 13-2-1952. By notification issued on 16-2-1952 the Act came into force on 18-2-1952.
Section 21 (1) of the Act provides that:
"As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the Government may by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, appoint a date for the resumption of any class of jagir lands and different dates may be appointed for different classes of jagir lands".
Acting under this provision, the State of Rajasthan issued notifications resuming the jagirs specified therein, whereupon petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed by the persons aggrieved challenging the validity of the Act. These petitions were 311 heard by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which held overruling the contentions of the petitioners, that the Act was valid. (Vide Amarsingh v. State of Rajasthan(1).
The present applications have been filed under article 32 impugning the Act on the following grounds:
I.The Rajpramukh had no competence to enact law, and the Act in question is therefore not a valid piece of legislation.
II. The Bill was not prepared by the Rajpramukh as required by article 212-A(2), and therefore the law was not validly enacted.
III. Resumption is not one of the topics of legislation enumerated either in the State list or in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and the Act is therefore ultra vires the powers of the State.
IV. The Act does not provide for adequate compensation; nor is there any public purpose involved in it, and so it contravenes article 31(2) It is discriminatory, and therefore contravenes article 14. And the legislation is not saved by article 31-A, because the lands resumed are neither estates nor jagirs nor grants similar to jagirs, inams or muafi This contention is special to some of the petitioners, and has reference to the specific properties held by them.
V. The properties sought to be resumed are not jagirs as defined in the Act, and the notifications under section 21 in so far as they relate to them are illegal. This again is a special contention urged in some of the petitions.
These contentions will now be considered seriatim.
1. On the first question as to the competence of the Rajpramukh to enact the law, it is necessary to notice the events which led up to the formation of the State of Rajasthan and the constitution of the Rajpramukh as its head. During the 12th and 13th Centuries, the Rajput rulers who were then reigning (1) A.I.R. 1954 Rajasthan 291.
40 312 over various parts of Hindusthan were compelled by pressure from the victorious Muhammadan invaders to retreat to the regions to the southwest guarded by the Aravali Hills and interspersed with deserts which if less hospitable were also less vulnerable, and there established several independent kingdoms. The period which followed the foundation of these States was marked by incessant wars, the powerful Sultans of Delhi making determined efforts to subjugate the Rajput princes and the latter offering stubborn and more or less successful resistance thereto. The annals of Rajputana especially of this period, present a story of heroic deeds of men and women and are among the most inspiring and fascinating chapters in the history of this country. The Moghul Emperors who established themselves later saw the wisdom of conciliating the Rajput rulers, and recognised their position as Chiefs getting in return an acknowledgment of their suzerainty from them, and a promise to send troops in support of the Imperial arms whenever required. When the power of the great Moghul waned and the British established themselves as masters of this country, they in their turn recognised the Rajput princes as Sovereigns, and entered into treaties with them during the Period between 1803 to 1818. (Vide Aitchison's Treaties, Volume III). By these treaties, the British Government accepted their status as independent rulers reserving to themselves Defence, External Relations and Communications and such other matters as might be agreed upon. The relationship thus created was one of "subordinate union" as it was termed by Mr. Lee Warner, the princes being recognised as Sovereigns and they acknowledging the suzerainty of the British. (Vide Protected Princes of India,, Chapter VI).
On 15-8-1947 India became independent, and the paramountcy of the British Crown over the States ceased. The question then arose as to the status of the ruling Chiefs. It was soon realised by them that in the larger interests of the country and in their own, they could not afford to keep out of the Indian Union and must throw in their lot with it.
The 313 problem of fitting them within the framework of the Indian Constitution was beset with considerable difficulties. The number of States which had been recognised as independent prior to 15-8-1947 was 552 excluding Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir. While a few of them were sufficiently large to be able to function as separate States, many of them were too small to be administered as distinct units. While some of them had representative forms of Government others had not, the rulers being the sole authority: executive, legislative and judicial. The solution which was adopted by the Government of India was that while the bigger States were continued as independent units of the Union, the smaller States were, where they formed islets within a Province, merged within that Province, and where they were contiguous, integrated together so as to form a new State called the Union.
One of the Unions thus newly formed was Rajasthan. There were at that time 18 independent rulers functioning over different parts of Rajasthan. Nine of them, rulers of Banswara, Bundi, Dungarpur, Jhalawar, Kishengarh, Kotah, Pratapgarh, Shahpura and Tonk-entered into an agreement in March -1948 merging their States in a single unit called the United State of Rajasthan. The ruler of Mewar joined this Union on 18-4-1948, and the rulers of Jaipur, Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmere on 30-3-1949. The rulers of Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karauli who bad formed themselves on 18-3-1948 as Matsya Union dissolved that Union and acceded to the Rajasthan Union on 15-5-1949. With that, the full strength of the State of Rajasthan was made up.
The constitution of the United State of Rajasthan as it finally emerged is to be found in the Covenant entered into by the 14 rulers on 30-3-1949. As the authority of the Rajpramukh to enact the impugned legislation was founded on this Covenant, it is necessary to refer to the material provisions thereof bearing on the question. Under Article II, the Covenanting States agreed "to unite and integrate their territories in one State with a common executive legisla314 ture and judiciary, by the name of the United State of Rajasthan". Article VI(2) provides that the ruler of each Covenanting State shall "make over the administration of his State to the Rajpramukh, and thereupon all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to the ruler which appertain or are incidental to the Government of the Covenanting States shall vest in the United State and shall thereafter be exercisable only as provided by this Covenant or by the Constitution to be framed thereunder. Article VII (3) provides:
"Unless other provision is made by the Act of the Legislature of the United State, the right to resume Jagirs or to recognise succession, according to law and custom, to the rights and titles of the jagirdars shall vest exclusively in the Rajpramukh". Them comes article X(3) which is as follows:
"Until a Constitution so framed comes into operation after receiving the assent of the Rajpramukh, the legislative authority of the United State shall vest in the Rajpramukh, who may make and promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good Government of the State or any part thereof, and any Ordinance so made shall have the like force of law as an Act passed by the legislature of the United State". Article X(3) was subsequently modified by substituting for the words "Until a Constitution so framed comes into operation after receiving the assent of the Rajpramukh", the words "Until the Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan has been duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the provisions of the Constitution of India". This modification was necessitated by the fact that the idea of convening a Constituent Assembly for framing a Constitution for the State as contemplated in article X (1) was dropped, and the Constitution as enacted for the Union of India was adopted. This amendment, however, is of a formal character, and does not affect the substance of the matter.
Then, there is article XIX under which the Rajasthan Government was to act "under the general control of and comply with such particular directions, 315 if any, as may from time to time, be given by the Government of India". These are the material provisions of the Constitution which was in force in the United State of Rajasthan before the Constitution of India came into operation on 26-11-1950.
Article 385 of the Constitution enacts:
"Until the House or Houses of the Legislature of a State specified in Part B of the First Schedule has or have been duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the provisions of this Constitution, the body or authority functioning immediately before the commencement of this Constitution as the legislature of the corresponding Indian States shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred by the provisions of this Constitution on the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State so specified".
It is the contention of the respondent that the Rajpramukh was by reason of article X(3) of the Covenant "the authority functioning immediately before the commencement of the Constitution as the Legislature" of Rajasthan, and that he could under article 385 exercise the powers which the Legislature of the State could. It is conceded by the petitioners that at the time of the impugned legislation. no House of Legislature had been constituted and summoned, and that to that extent the requirements of that Article are satisfied; but their contention is that on a true construction of the articles of the Covenant the Rajpramukh was not an authority functioning as Legislature within the meaning of article 385, and further that article VII(3) of the Covenant imposed a prohibition on his power to enact a law of the kind now under challenge, and that the prohibition had not been abrogated by the Constitution.
The question then is which was the body or authority which was functioning as the Legislature of the United State of Rajasthan under the terms of the Covenant. Article X(3) expressly provides that the legislative authority of the State shall vest in the Rajpramukh. The meaning of this provision is clear and unambigu316 ous; but it is argued for the petitioners that it is controlled and cut down by the expression "Ordinance" in article X(3) and by the terms of article VII(3) and of article XIX. It is contended by Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that the legislative authority of the Rajpramukh was only to "make and promulgate Ordinance" that it is a limited power conferred on him to be exercised in case of emergency pending the constitution of popular legislature, and that accordingly he was not a "legislative authority" for the purpose of article 385. But this is to import into the word "Ordinance" what it connotes under the Government of India Act, 1935 or the Constitution of India. Sections 42 and 88 of the Government of India Act conferred on the Governor-General and the Governor respectively power to promulgate ordinances when the Legislature was not in session. Similar power is conferred on the President and the Governors by articles 123 and 213 of the Constitution.
That is a legislative power exercisable by the head of the State, when it is not possible for the Legislature to exercise it. But the United State of Rajasthan had then no Legislature, which had yet to be constituted, and therefore in its context, the word "Ordinance" in article X (3) cannot bear the meaning which it has under the Government of India Act or the Constitution. It should be remembered that before the formation of the United State, the Covenanting rulers enjoyed sovereign rights of legislation in their respective territories; and under article VI (2) (a), they agreed to surrender those rights and vest them in the United State. It was therefore plainly intended that the State of Rajasthan should have plenary. legislative authority such as was formerly exercised by the rulers; and where was it lodged, if not in the Rajpramukh? If we are to construe article X(3) in the manner contended for by the petitioners, then the anomalous result will follow that there was in that State no authority in which the legislative power was vested. This anomaly would disappear if we are to construe "Ordinance" as meaning law.
That indeed is its etymological meaning. According to the Concise Ox317 ford Dictionary, "to ordain" means "to decree, enact"; and "Ordinance" would therefore mean "decree, enactment". In Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume XI, page 183, para 327 it is stated that when the Governor of a colony which has no representative assembly enacts legislation with the advice and consent of the State council, it is designated ordinance or law. That clearly is the sense in which the word is used in article X(3), and that is placed beyond doubt by the words which follow, that the Ordinance is to have "the like force of law as an Act passed by the Legislature of the United State".
It was next urged that under article VII(3) the Rajpramukh was given authority to resume jagirs only in accordance with law and custom, that he had no authority to enact a law for the resumption of jagirs on grounds other than those recognised by law and custom, that section 22 of the Act provided that the resumption was to take effect notwithstanding any jagir law which as defined in section 2(d) includes also custom, that such a law was directly opposed to what was authorised by article VII(3), that the legislative powers conferred under article X (3) must be exercised subject to the restrictions under article VII(3), and that the Act was therefore beyond his competence. This contention is, in our opinion, untenable. The words "according to law and custom" cannot be held to qualify the words "right to resume jagirs", because they are wedged in between the words "right to recognise succession" and the words "to the rights and titles of Jagirdars", and must be construed as qualifying only "the right to recognise succession to the rights and titles of Jagirdars". But this may not, by itself, be of much consequence, as the power to resume provided in this article is what the grantor possesses under law and custom. The real difficulty in the way of the petitioners is that article VII(3) has reference to the power which rulers of States had as rulers to resume jagirs, and what it provides is that it should thereafter be exercised by the Rajpramukh. That power is purely an executive one, and has nothing to do with the legislative power of the ruler, which 318 is specially provided for in article X(3). The fields covered by the two articles are distinct and separate, and there can be no question of article VII(3) operating as a restriction on the legislative power under article X(3).
Indeed, article VII(3) expressly provides that it is subject to any legislation on the subject, whereas article X(3) is not made subject to article VII(3).
Even if the petitioners are right in their contention that article VII(3) imposes a limitation on the powers of the Rajpramukh, that would not, in view of article 385, derogate from the power of the Rajpramukh to enact the present law.
The scope of that article is that the body or authority which was functioning before the commencement of the Constitution as the Legislature of the State has first to be ascertained, and when once that has been done and the body or authority identified, the Constitution confides to that body or authority all the powers conferred by the provisions of the Constitution on the House or Houses of Legislature of the State. These powers might be wider than what the body or authority previously possessed or they might be narrower.
But they are the powers which are allowed to it under article 385, and the extent of the previous authority is wholly immaterial. The contention that the Act is incompetent by reason of article VII(3) of the Covenant must accordingly fail.
It was next argued that the powers of the Rajpramukh under article X(3) were subject to the general control of the Government of India under article XIX, and that he could not therefore be regarded as legislative authority for the purpose of article 385. We see no force in this contention.
Article 385 provides that the authority which was to exercise legislative powers in the interim period under that Article should be the authority which was functioning as the Legislature of the State before the commencement of the Constitution. It does not further require that that authority should have possessed absolute and unlimited powers of legislation. It could not be, and it was not, contended that the effect of article XIX 319 was to vest the legislative authority of the State in the Government of India, and that being so, the Rajpramukh was the legislative authority of the State, whatever the limitations on that authority.
it was finally contended that article 385 has no application to the present case, because under article 168 the Legislature is to consist of both the Governor and one or more Houses, that article 238(7) extends article 168 to Part B States substituting the Rajpramukh in the place of the Governor, that accordingly the Rajpramukh cannot by himself constitute the Legislature, and that when article 385 refers to the body or authority functioning as Legislature, it could only refer to both the Rajpramukh and the House functioning in conjunction. Support for this contention was sought in the terms of article 212-A(1) of the Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. 11, which excluded in relation to Part B States only the first proviso to article 200, but not the body of it. If this contention is sound, then article 385 must be treated as a dead letter as regards such of the Part B States as had no House of Legislature.
But, in our opinion, this contention is untenable, because article 385 refers not to Legislatures under the Constitution but to the body or authority which was functioning as the Legislature of the State before the commencement of the Constitution., and article 238(7) is, under the Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order subject to article 385. Nor can any argument be founded on the exclusion of the first proviso to article 200 but not of the body of that article under article 212-A (1), because it lays down the procedure to be followed when a Bill has been passed by a Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State, and is by its very terms inapplicable when there is no House of Legislature. The contention of Mr. Frank Anthony that the non-inclusion of the body of article 200 among the articles excluded from application to Part B States under article 212-A(1) imposes by implication a limitation on the power of the Rajpramukh to enact laws unless they are passed by Legislative Assemblies is 320 not supported by anything in the article, and must be rejected. We must accordingly bold that the Rajpramukh had legislative competence to enact the law under challenge.
II.The second contention that has been pressed by the petitioners is that the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Bill was not prepared by the Rajpramukh as required by article 212-A(2), and that the Act was therefore not validly enacted. The facts material for the purpose of this contention are that the Bill was first prepared in the Ministerial Department in accordance with the rules framed under article 166(3) for the "convenient transaction of the business of the State". It was approved by the Council of Ministers on 27-12-1951 and sent to the Rajpramukh with the following note by the Secretary:
"The Bill is submitted for gracious approval and signature and for reserving it for the consideration of the President".
Then there is firstly an endorsement "approved" signed by the Rajpramukh and dated 31-12-1951, and then follows another endorsement, "I hereby reserve this Bill for the consideration of the President" similarly signed and dated.
On 21-1-1952 the President endorsed on the Bill, "I withhold my assent from the Bill". Thereafter, a fresh Bill was prepared and submitted to the Rajpramukh on 6-2-1952 with the following note by the Chief Secretary:
"The Bill as finally agreed to is now submitted to His Highness the Rajpramukh for his approval and for reserving the same for the consideration of the President".
The Rajpramukh gave his approval on 8-2-1952, and by a further order he reserved the Bill for the consideration of the President who gave his assent on 13-2-1952. Now, the question is whether on these facts the requirements of article 212-A(2) have been complied with.
Article 212-A(2) was enacted by the Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. 11, and is as follows:
321 "The Rajpramukh or other authority exercising the legislative powers in any such State as aforesaid under article 385 shall prepare such Bills as may be deemed necessary, and the Rajpramukh shall declare as respects any Bill so prepared either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves it for the consideration of the President".
The contention of the petitioners is that as the Bill was prepared by the Ministers and not the Rajpramukh, article 212-A(2) had been contravened, and that, in consequence, the law had not been properly enacted. It is conceded that under this article the Rajpramukh has not himself to draft the Bill, and that be might delegate that work to others.
But they insist-and in our opinion, rightly-that questions of policy which are of the essence of the legislation should at least be decided by him, and that even that had not been done in the present case. They rely strongly on the statements in the affidavit of Sri Joshi, the Jagir Commissioner, that the Bill was drafted in the Ministerial Department in accordance with the rules framed under article 166(3), approved by the Council of Ministers and sent on to the Rajpramukh for his assent. These allegations, they contend, preclude any supposition that the Rajpramukh had any part or lot in the settlement of the policies underlying the Act, and the Bill must be held therefore not to have been prepared by him.
Taking it that such are the facts, what follows? Only that at the inception the Bill was not prepared by the Rajpramukh. But that does not conclude the question whether there bad been compliance with article 212-A(2), unless we hold that it was not open to the Rajpramukh to adopt a Bill prepared by the Ministers as his own, or if it was open, he did not, in fact, do so. It cannot be disputed that whether a Bill is in the first instance prepared by the Rajpramukh or whether he adopts what had been prepared by the Ministers as his own, the position in law is the same. That has not been disputed by the petitioners. Their contention is that such adoption 322 should be clearly and unequivocally established, and that the records do not establish it. It was argued that when the Bill was sent to the Rajpramukh, he was not called upon to apply his legislative mind to it but to merely assent to it on the executive side; that when the Rajpramukh endorsed his approval he was, as admitted by Sri Joshi, merely assenting to it, that assent implied that the Act assented to was not that of the person assenting, and that therefore there was nothing to indicate that the Rajpramukh had adopted the Bill prepared by the Ministers as his own. It was argued by Mr. Agarwala that when the word " approve" was used in the Constitution as in articles 146 and 147, it signified that there were two authorities, one of which was authorised to confirm or sanction what the other had authority to do, and that when the latter was not authorised to do the act, there could be no approval of it by the former; and he also relied on the statement of the law in Corpus Juris, Volume I, page 1365 that the word 'approve' does not mean the same thing as 'adopt'.
The fallacy in this argument lies in isolating the word "approved" from out of its setting and context and interpreting it narrowly. It will be noticed that under article 212-A (2) the Rajpramukh has to do two distinct acts: Firstly he has to prepare the Bill, and secondlyleaving out of consideration the first two alternatives, namely, assenting to, or with holding assent from, the Bill as not material for the present discussion-he has to reserve it for the consideration of the President. When he himself prepares the Bill, he has, in order to comply with article 212-A(2) merely to reserve it for the consideration of the President. In such a case, no question of approval to the Bill by him can arise, but when the Bill has not been prepared by him, he has firstly, if he thinks fit, to adopt it before he could pass on to the second stage and reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President; and the very purpose of his endorsing his approval on the Bill is to show that he has thought fit to adopt it. There is no provision in article 212-A(2) for the Rajpramukh approving of a Bill, and in 323 the context, therefore, an endorsement of approval on the Bill must signify its adoption by him. We are unable to follow the subtle distinction sought to be made by Mr. Frank Anthony between the Legislative mind of the Rajpramukh and his executive mind. If it is open to the Rajpramukh to adopt a Bill prepared by his Ministers, the only matter that will have to be considered is whether, in fact, he did so.
And when the Bill is produced with an endorsement of approval under his signature, the question must be held to be concluded, and any further discussion about the legislative or executive state of mind of the Rajpramukh must be ruled out as inadmissible.
It must be mentioned in this connection that Mr. Pathak for the respondent took up the position that the function of the Rajpramukh at the stage of preparation of the Bill was purely executive, and that it became legislative only when he had to decide whether he would assent to the Bill or withhold his assent there from, or reserve it for the consideration of the President, and that by leaving it to the Ministers to prepare the Bill there had been no violation of article 212-A(2). We are unable to agree with this contention. When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State, article 200 enacts that it shall be presented to the Governor who is to declare whether he assents to it or withholds his assent there from, or reserves it for the consideration of the President. When there is no Legislative Assembly in a State, the matter is governed by article 212-A(2), and there is substituted under that article in the place of the passing of the Bill by the Legislature, the preparation thereof by the Rajpramukh, and then follows the provision that he has to declare whether he assents to or withholds his assent from the Bill or reserves it for the consideration of the President. The position under article 212-A(2) has thus been assimilated to that under article 200, the preparation of the Bill by the Rajpramukh taking the place of the passing of the Bill by the Legislative Assembly, and the one is as much a legislative function as the other.
One other contention attacking the Act on the 324 ground of procedural defect may now be considered. It was argued by Mr. Trivedi that under the proviso to article 201, the President bad no power to return a Money Bill for further consideration by a House of Legislature, that his order dated 21-1-1952 returning the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Bill for further consideration was ultra vires as it was a Money Bill, that the subsequent presentation of the Bill to him on 8-2-1952 was unauthorised, and that the impugned Act had therefore not been duly passed. This argument is clearly erroneous.
Under article 212-A(1), the proviso to article 201 has no application to those Part B States where there was no House of the Legislature; and we are unable to follow the argument of the learned counsel that even so, the limitation imposed by the proviso is implicit in the body of the article itself. Moreover, the order of the President dated 21-11952 is not one returning the Bill for further consideration by the House but one refusing assent. It is true that the Deputy Secretary sent a communication to the Rajasthan Government suggesting some amendments. But this does not alter the character of the order of the President as one withholding assent. And finally the Bill which was submitted again to the President for consideration on 6-21952 was a fresh Bill, the previous Bill having been modified as regards the scales of compensation. The contention, therefore, that the Act is bad for noncompliance with article 212-A(2) or for other procedural defects must be rejected.
III. We may now consider the third contention of the petitioners that the Act in so far as it provides for resumption of jagir lands is ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature, as it is not one of the topics mentioned either in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The contention of the respondent is that the Act is in substance a law relating to acquisition, and is covered by Entry No. 36 in the State List. On the other hand, the petitioners maintain that the subject-matter of the legislation is what it avows itself to be, viz., resumption of jagirs, that resumption is in law totally different from 325 acquisition, and that the Act is therefore not covered by Entry No. 36.
We agree with the petitioners that resumption and acquisition connote two different legal concepts. While resumption implies that the person or authority which resumes the property has pre-existing rights over it, acquisition carries no such implication, and in general, while the effect of resumption is to extinguish the interests of the person whose property is resumed, that of acquisition is to vest that interest in the acquirer. But the question still remains whether the impugned Act is one for acquisition of jagirs or for their resumption; and to determine that, we must see what the pith and substance of the legislation is, the name given to it by the Legislature not being decisive of the matter.
The provisions of the Act relating to resumption may now be noticed. Chapter V deals with resumption of jagir lands.
Section 21 authorises the State to issue notifications for resumption of jagirs, and section 22(1) enacts:
"As from the date of resumption of any jagir lands, notwithstanding anything contained in any existing jagir legislation applicable thereto but save as otherwise provided in this Act,(a) the right, title and interest of the jagirdar and of every other person claiming through him .... in his jagir lands including forests, etc .... shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances".
Section 22(1)(g) is as follows:
"the right, title and interest of the jagirdar in all buildings on jagir lands used for schools and hospitals not within residential compounds shall stand extinguished, and such buildings shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Government".
Section 23 exempts certain properties from the operation of section 22, and provides that they are to continue to belong to the jagirdars or to be held by them. Chapter VI deals with compensation. Section 26(1) enacts:
326 "Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Government shall be liable to pay every jagirdar whose Jagir lands are resumed under section 21 such compensation as shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the second schedule".
Chapter VII prescribes the procedure for the determination of compensation and for payment of the same. The second Schedule to the Act contains the principles on which compensation is to be determined. That was the scope of the Act as it was passed in 1952. In 1954 certain amendments were introduced by Act No. XIII of 1954, the most important of which was the provision for payment of rehabilitation grant in accordance with the principles enacted in Schedule III to the Act.
Now, the contention of the petitioners is that the basic assumption on which the Act is framed is that jagirdars have no right of property in the lands themselves, but that they possess some ancillary rights in relation thereto, that the State is therefore entitled to resume the lands without compensation, and that it is sufficient to pay for the ancillary rights. These, it is argued, were the views expressed by the Venkatachar Committee in its Report on Land Tenures in Rajasthan, and they formed the basis of the impugned Act. Thus, it is pointed out that the Committee had held that "jagirs are not the property of the jagirdars" (vide page 47, para 5), that '-'if the jagir system is abolished, jagirdars would not be entitled to any compensation on the ground of the jagirs being private property", and that "even though jagirs are not property................ those rights which have in many cases been enjoyed for centuries have acquired around them an accretion of rights by long custom and -prescription which are entitled to due recognition", and that a rehabilitation grant might be given to the jagirdars. (Page 47, para 6).
It is contended that it is these views that have been adopted in section 22 of the Act, and that when section 22 (1) (a) declares that the right, title and interest of the jagirdars shall stand resumed, it could not mean that these rights are acquired by the State, because acquisition implies that the 327 properties acquired belong to the person from whom they are acquired, whereas the basis of the legislation was that the jagirdars bad no property in the lands, and there could be no acquisition of what did not belong to them. Reference is made by way of contrast to the language of section 22(1) (g) under which certain buildings standing on jagir lands presumably constructed by jagirdars should stand transferred to the Government and not resumed as under section 22 (1) (a).
This argument proceeds on an inadequate appreciation of the true nature and scope of the right of resumption under the general law and of the power of resumption which is conferred on the State by the impugned Act. Under the law, a jagir could be resumed only under certain circumstances.
It can be resumed for breach of the terms of the grant, such as failure to render services or perform the obligations imposed by the grant. It can be resumed for rebellion or disloyalty or for the commission of serious crimes. And again, jagir was originally only a life grant and when the holder died., it reverted back to the State and succession to the estate was under a fresh grant from the State and not by inheritance, even when the successor was the heir of the deceased holder. The right to resume jagirs within the limits aforesaid was founded on grant and regulated by general law. To exercise that right, there was no need to enact any legislation. It was a right which every ruler of the Covenanting State had as a grantor, and that right had become vested in the Rajpramukh under article VII(3) of the Covenant. The contention of the petitioners that resumption was not an acquisition would strictly be accurate, if the resumption was in exercise of the power conferred by that article.
But the resumption for which the Act provides is something different from the resumption which is authorised by article VII(3). It was a resumption not in accordance with the terms of the grant or the law applicable to jagirs but contrary to it, or in the words of section 21 "notwithstanding anything contained in 42 328 any existing jagir law applicable thereto". It was a resumption made not in enforcement of the rights which the rulers had as grantors but in exercise of the sovereign rights of eminent domain possessed by the State. The taking of properties is under the circumstances, in substance, acquisition notwithstanding that it is labelled as resumption. And this conclusion becomes irresistible when regard is had to the provisions for payment of compensation.
Section 26(1) imposes on the Government a liability to pay compensation in accordance with the principles laid down in the second Schedule, and as will be presently shown, it is not illusory. The award of compensation is consistent only with the taking beingan acquisition and not with its being a resumption in accordance with the terms of the grant or the law applicable to it, for in such cases, there is no question of any liability to pay compensation.
It was argued for the petitioners that the provision for the payment of rehabilitation grant was an indication that what was paid as compensation was in reality ex gratia. But the rehabilitation grant was in addition to the compensation amount, and it was provided by the amendment Act No. XIII of 1954. Nor are we impressed by the contention that the Act had adopted the findings of the Venkatachar Committee that the jagirs were not the properties of the jagirdars, and that no compensation need be paid for them. Under section 22(1)(a), what is resumed is expressly the right, title and interest of the jagirdar in his jagir lands, and provision is made for payment of compensation therefor. Moreover, the opinions in the report of the Venkatachar Committee on the rights of the jagirdars are clearly inadmissible for the purpose of deciding what the pith and substance of the impugned legislation is. That must be decided on an interpretation of the provisions of the statute, and that decision cannot be controlled or guided by the opinions expressed in the report. Reading the provisions of the Act as, a whole, it is abundantly plain that what was meant by resumption was only acquisition. Indeed, if the Act purported to be one for 329 acquisition of jagirs, its provisions could not have been different from what they are.
Such being the true character of the legislation, not much significance could be attached to the use of the word "resumption" in the Act. It should be remembered that the State has a reversion in jagir lands, and when it takes them back in accordance with the terms of the grant or the law applicable thereto, its action is properly termed resumption. When the statute enacted a law authorising the taking of jagir lands, it is natural that it should have adopted the same term, though the resumption was not made on any of the grounds previously recognised as valid. In view of the peculiar relationship between the jagirdar and the State, it cannot be said that the word "resumption" is inadmissible to signify acquisition. Section 22(1)(a) further enacts that the lands shall stand resumed "to the Government", which words are more appropriate for acquisition by the Government than resumption simpliciter.
It was also contended for the respondent that the Act is one relating to land and land tenures, and that it would fall under Entry No. 18 in the State List:
"Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans;
colonization".
It was argued that the heads of legislation mentioned in the Entries should receive a liberal construction, and the decision in The United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum(1) was quoted in support of it. The position -is well settled and in accordance therewith, it could rightly be held that the legislation falls also under Entry No. 18. But there being an Entry No. 36 specifically dealing with acquisition, and in view of our conclusion as to the nature of the legislation, we hold that it falls under that Entry.
IV.Now we come to the contentions special to some of the petitioners that with reference to the (1) [1940] F.C.R. 110, 134, 330 properties held by them the impugned Act is not saved by article 31-A, and that it is void as being in contravention of articles 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution. On this contention, two questions arise for determination: (A) Is the impugned Act in so far as it relates to the properties of the petitioners within the protection afforded by article 31-A? (B) And is the Act bad as infringing articles 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution? IV(A). On the first question, the contention of the petitioners is that the properties held by them are neither `estates'nor'Jagirs' nor 'other similar grants,' within article 31-A, and that therefore the impugned Act falls, quoad hoc, outside the ambit of that article. At the threshold of the discussion lies the question as to the precise connotation of the words "jagir or other similar grant" in article 31-A, and to determine it, it is necessary to trace in broad outline the origin and evolution of the jagir tenure in Rajasthan. It has been already mentioned that during the period of the Muhammadan invasion the Rajput princes of Hindusthan migrated to Rajputana and founded new kingdoms. The system of land tenure adopted by them was that they divided the conquered territories into two parts, reserved one for themselves and distributed the other in blocks or estates among their followers. In general, the grantees were the leaders of the clan which had followed the King and assisted him in the establishment of the kingdom or his Ministers. Sometimes, the grant was made as a reward for past services. The lands reserved for the King were called Khalsa, and the revenue therefrom was collected by him directly through his officials. The lands distributed among his followers were called jagirs and they were generally granted on condition that the grantee should render military service to the rulers such as maintaining militia of the specified strength or guarding the passes or the marches and the like. The extent of the grant would depend on the extent of the obligations imposed on the grantee, and it would be such as would enable the grantee to maintain himself and the troops from out of the 331 revenues from the jagir. It was stated by Mr. Pathak that the grants would in general specify the amount of revenue that was expected to be received from the jagir, and that if the jagirdar received more, he was under an obligation to account to the State for the excess. And he quoted the following passage in Baden Powell on Land Systems of British India, Volume 1, page 257 as supporting him:
"While a strict control lasted, the jagirdar was bound to take no more than the sum assigned; and if more came into his hands, he had rigidly to account for the surplus to the State treasury".
This statement has value only as throwing light on the jural relationship between the State and the jagirdar, for it does not appear that it was ever observed in practice. It may be deduced from the foregoing that all the lands of the State must fall within one or the other of the two categories, Khalsa or jagir, and that the essential features of a jagir are that it is held under a grant from the ruler, and that the grant is of the land revenue.
Some of the incidents of the jagir tenure have been already touched upon. It was a life grant and succession to it depended on recognition by the ruler. It was impartible, and inalienable. But in course of t
