Case: The State Of Rajasthan Vs. Rao Manohar Singhji

2. The respondent Rao Manohar Singhji is the owner of the Jagir of Bedla situated in the former State of Mewar, now included in the State of Rajasthan. The former State of Mewar was integrated in April 1948 to form what was known as the former United State of Rajasthan. In April and May 1949 the latter State was amalgamated with the former State of Bikaner, Jaipur, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur and the former Union of Matsya to form the present United State of Rajasthan. Three Ordinance No. 27 of 1948 and Nos. 10 and 15 of 1949 were issued by the former State of Rajasthan in connection with State ofmanagement of the Jagirs including the Jagir of Bedla was assumed by the former State of Rajasthan in virtue of the powers under these Ordinances. After the final formation of State of Rajasthan in May 1949, the Ordinances remained in force in a part of the present area of Rajasthan with the result that while Jagirs in a part of area were managed by the State in that area, the Jagirs in the rest of the state were left untouched and remained with the Jagirdars.On January 4, 1951, the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that the said Ordinances were ultra vires the Constitution and that they became void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 and 31. The respondent challenged the Ordinances firstly because they constitute an infringement of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and secondly because the Jagirdars only of the former State of Rajasthan which was formed in 1948 are prejudicially affected, while Jagirdars of the States which integrated later on are not at all affected (Paras 9, K andwas alleged that there was denial of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws by reason of these Ordinances and further that the State had taken possession of the property of the respondent without providing for compensation. The reply of the State was that the Jagir was a State grant held at the pleasure of the Ruler and that it reverted to the Ruler on the death of the holder of the Jagir and was regranted to his successor after the Ruler had recognised the succession. The rights of the Jagirdars were non-heritable and non-transferable and the Jagirs could not be partitioned amongst the heirs of thewas pleaded therefore that even if the State took possession of the Jagir, the Jagirdar was not entitled to compensation under Article 31(2). It was also alleged that the impugned Ordinances had merely the effect of transferring the management of the Jagirs to the Government and did not deprive the Jagirdars of their property and they were consequently not hit by Article 31(2). It was denied that there was any discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court held on the first question that the provisions of Ordinances Nos. 10 and 15 of 1949, are not void under Article 31(2) orthe second point they recorded the conclusion that Section 8-A which was introduced in Ordinance No. 27 of 1948 by Section 4 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1949 and the amendment to Section 8-A by Section 3 of Rajasthan Ordinance No. 15 of 1949 are void under Article 13(1) of the constitution read with Article 14. The High Court accordingly allowed the petition and prohibited the State from collecting rents from the tenants of the land comprising the Jagir of Bedla held by the respondent. This Judgment was given on December 11, 1951, but we understand that since then the State has passed Acts abolishing Jagirs throughout the

Court's reasoning:
Such an obvious discrimination can be supported only on the ground that it was based upon a reasonable classification. It is now well settled by the decision of this court that a proper classification must always bear a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which it is proposed. Judged by this criterion it seems to us that the discrimination is based on no classification at all and is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. The classification might have been justified if the State had shown that it was based upon a substantial distinction, namely that the Jagirdars of the area subjected to the disability were in some way different to those of the other area of Rajasthan who were not similarly situated.The preambles of the Ordinances do not purport to show that the conditions in the former State of Rajasthan were such as to justify the imposition of the disability on the Jagirdars of that State while the conditions prevailing in the other States forbade such a course.We agree with the High Court in holding that there was no real and substantial distinction why the Jagirdars of a particular area should continue to be treated with inequality as compared with the Jagirdars in another area of Rajasthan. We hold therefore that no rational basis for any classification or differention has been made out. Section 8-A of the impugned Ordinance as amended is a clear contravention of the respondents right under Article 14 of the Constitution and must be declared void.