RANI INDER KUMAR! ETC. ETC. v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

February 25, 1975

[K. K. MATHEW, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]

Rajasthar. Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958-S. 3 Constitutiona/ va/idi!Y of- Delay i:: approachinR the Court-Effect of.

By s. 3 of the Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act: 1958 all cash jagirs sanctioned to the former princes were abolished. Sub-s. (2) of s. 3 provided for payment of .cmpensation. The petitioners received compensation from 1958 to 1970. Jn 1970, however, they questioned the validity of s. 3 on the ground that it is violative of ar:icles 31 and 19( 1) ( f) of the Constitution.

Di>missing the petitions.

HELD : The petitioners have approached the court after inordinate de Jay and eve.11 then after enjoying the full benefit under the Act. The petitioners rnnnot be alJowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath.

Right to the compensation, of wha1ever nature or content. flowed from !he abolition of the cash jagirs under the Act and acceptance. of compmJation gave .a quietus to the daim to have the Act adjudged s ultra rires.

The founda~1on of the compensation was the abolition of cash j8girs. [707G; Fl

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shirulc & Anr. [19681 3' S.C.R. 489, distinguished.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 610 to 614 of 1970.

Petitions under Art. 32 of tlie Constitution of India.

E Mohan Behari L., I, for the petitioners.

L. M. Singhvi and S. M. Jain, for the respondents.

fhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C:oswAMI, J.-By the above Writ Petitions the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958 (Act No. 29 of 1958) is challenged as violative of the petitioners' fundamental righl:i. under articles 14, 19(1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution.

The facts of Writ Petition No. 610 of 1970 may alone be sufficient. The petitioner states that in view of the near relationship as well as in lieu of her husband's share in the parental jagir of Riri the Maharaja of Bikaner sanctioned a separate cash grant to her husband, Maharaj Chander Singh ji, of Rs. 1200/- per annum on May 23,

1942. This amount was continuously paid to her husband by the State of Bikaner and was later raised to Rs. 2400/- per annum with effect from February 2, 1943. This grant of Rs. 2400/- with an addition of Rs. 600/- as pearness allowance was shared between her and her husband under the order of the Prime Minister of Bikaner State dated September '18, 1942. This payment of Rs. 1500/~ per annum was continued to be received by the petitioner through Bikaner Treasury upto the formation of the State of Rajasthan, on April 7,

1949. After the death of her husband on May 6, 1951, the payment

of her grant was continued. The Stat.e of Rajasthan being the. sccei

sor to the former Bikaner State recognised this grant and contmued to make payment to the petitioner. It appears that after the death of her husband it was decided in December 1953 that no payment should be made to her thereafter and the regular payments received by hr after the ~':ath of l.1er husband would not be recovered. On the petir tioners representation, however, the grant was restored an? was allowed to continue till its discontinuance by the act of the legislature.

Anm:xure 'C' to the petition shows the order .of the Acc:?untant General of Raja:sthan to the Treasury Officer, B1kaner, conveymg the sanction of the Governor for the continuance of the grant of Rs. 125/- per month to the petitioner from the date the same had bee.n discontinued "till the cash jagirs are resumed". This order is dat1d June s. 1958.

The Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958 (briefly the Act) received the assent of the President on July 13, 1958.

Section :~ (a) of the Act defines cash jagir to mean "any grant of money by way of jagir or otherwise, made or recognised to have been

nuide by tho Government in any part of the State or y the Ruler of D a convenanting State without any consideration or in lieu of jagir rei; umed or abolished otherwise than under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 ....... "

Section 3 which provides for abolition of cash jagirs reads thus :

3 (I) "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, sanad, c.rder, custom or usage in force in any part of the State, alJ payments of money on account of cash jagirs to which this Act applies, that wero being made or enforced at the commencement of this Act, shall be dfacontinued on and from the 1st day of April, 1958 211d all rnch cash jagirs shall stand abolished as from that day.

(2) Notwithstanding such discontinuance and abolition the State Government shall continue to make payments by way of compensation in accordance with scale laid down in

the Second Schedule, and the provisions of the Rajasthan Pensions Act, 1958, shall apply to such payments".

The Second Schedule \Shows, inter alia, that if the monthlv rate of the grant exceeds Rs. 50/- but does not exceed Rs. 250j'. the grantee will be paid the compensation for a period of twelve years frotn the !st day of April, 1958.

Setion 6 ( 2), which is also under attack, provides that "nothing in this Act or in the rules made there-under shall affect such other grants .of oney a~ the S!ate Government may, from time to time, by n.o!Ifkat10n 1~ the Official Gazette, declare to be exempt from the prov1s1ons of this Act, and the provisions of the Rajasthan Pensions Act, 1958, shall appl•1 to such exempted grants of money".

RANI INDER KUMARI v. RAJASTHAN (Goswami J.) 707

It is coi:tended on behalf of the petitioners that section 3 of the Act is violative of articles 31 and 19(1)(£) of the Constitution and sectiolli 6(2) is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. According to the petitioners their cases are covered by a decision of this Court in State of Madhya, Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde & Anr.,( 1 ) where this Court held lhe Madhya Pradesh Aboiition of Cash Grants Act, 1963, to be violative of article 31(2) or in the alternative of article 190) (f) of the Constitution.

Before we proceed fUrther we have to state that the petitioners have an insurmountable obstacle to get over in these petitions. In Madhya Pradesh cas0 . (supra) the petitione; s therein approached the

Hi~ Court soon after the, promu!gation of the particular Act in 1963 and the High Court accepted their conteution that tho Act was ultra. iiru of article. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution and was not saved by sub-article (5) thereof.

The State of Madhya Pradesh appeared to thi• Court by a certificate obtain, ed from the High Ceurt under article

I 33(l)(c) and this Court in the above mentioned decision dismissed the State's appeals. In the present case the petitioners took advantage of tho provisions of the Act, particularly sub-section (2) of section 3 by which payments by way of compensation were allowed .'1otwithstaadini; the abolition of the grant under sub-section (1) of section

3. So far as the abolition of the cash jagirs was concerned it was complete on and from the 1st day of April, 1958 under sub-section ( l) of section 3 of the Act. The petitioners had been in enjoyment of the compensation in accordance with the scale laid down in the Second Schedule from the inception of the Act which abolished the cash jagirs on and from 1st April, 1958, till 31st March, 1970, and approached this Court under article 32 of the Constitution on October 12, 1970, when under sub-section (2) of section 3 the compensation was discontinued.

The petitioners cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the sa111e breath. Right to the compensation, of whatever nature or content, flowed from the abolition of the cash jagirs underthe Act.

Acceptance of the compensation under the Act for the full length of the period of twelve years completely neg1tives the scope of attack upon the abolition of the grant. The foundation of the compensation is the abolition of the cash jagirs. Section 3(2) under which the compoosation is available is integrally connected with section 3 (1) which has 11bolishecl the cash jagirs from a specified date and it is only on such abolition that compenstion is rendered possible. Acceptance of compensation, therefore, gives a quietus to the claim to have the Act adjudged as ultra vires. The petitioners cannot eat a cake and have it. At any rate the petitioners have aporoached the court after inordinate delay and even then after enjoying the full ben~-fit under the Act. The petitions, therefore, cannot be entertained.

The petitioners also contend that section 6(2) of the Act is discriminatory and is violative of the equality clause under article 14 af the Constitution. Section 6 i5 a saving provision.

The case of the-

(1)(1968]3 S.C. R. 489.

petitioners is that a go0d number of persons have been exempted from the operation of the abolition of the grant. It is submitted that

whllc under section 6(1) there is guidance with regard to the exemption, there is none whatsoever under section 6(2). Whatever the :merit of this submission, the petitioners are not going to be benefited by striking down section 6 (2) of the Act. Assuming it is ultra vires, section 6(2) is clearly severable from the rest of the provisions. On the other hand, depending upon:· this provision, the petitioners may be able to receive appropriate consideration from the Government to b;: included in the list of exemptees. Indeed,, Dr.

Singhvi, the learned Advocate General, gave us to understand that he would himself recommend the case of three of the petitioners as deserving consid(; ration under section 6(2). We do not know whether the other two petitioners may also be able to convince the Government about the merit of thir case for equal consideration. We assume that under these provisions the Government has certain principles on whic:h it acts to give relief to the needy. It is, therefore, idle for the petitioners to have a decision from this Court to strike down a provision which may u!(im::i•cly be to their aid. We are not, therefore, inclined to pas on this submission advanced by the petitioners. In the result the petitions fail and are dismis,; ed, but in the entire circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.

P.B.R.

Petition dismissed.

D 1,