Summarize the following court judgment. 200 of 1955. 439 Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. section K. Kapoor and Ganpat Rai	 for the petitioner. G. C. Kasliwal and D. Gupta	 for the respondents. St 1961. March 17. 	 J. Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act	 1952 (which will be hereafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act)	 enacts: "4. All lands liable to pay land revenue. Not withstanding anything contained in any existing jagir law or any other law	 all jagir lands shall	 as from the commencement of this Act	 be liable to payment of land revenue to the Government; and as from such commencement	 the liability of (a) all Jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing Jagir Law shall cease	 and The expression 'tribute '	 the liability to pay which was thus extinguished from and after the commencement of the Act	 was defined in section 2(r) of that Act in the following terms: 'Tribute ' in relation to a jagir	 includes rekh	 rakam	 chatund	 chakri or other charge of a similar nature; and" In the absence of the above provision the petitioner would have been under an obligation to pay to the Government 'hukamnama ' under section 190 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act	 1949 (referred to hereafter as the Marwar Act) which codified the earlier law irk that State. The short question that is raised by this petition under article 32 of the Constitution is whether the liability of the petitioner to pay 'hukamnama	 the nature of which we shall explain later	 has been extinguished by the provision of the Rajasthan Act above extracted which	 as would be seen	 turns on whether such a payment could be comprehended within the expression 'tribute '. Relying on section 4(a) of the Rajasthan Act	 the petitioner resists the demand of he same made by the respondent State and impugns the legality of the claim. 440 It is necessary to set out a few facts and certain provisions of the Marwar Act to appreciate the matter in controversy. Thakur Nathu Singh	 the Jagirdar of Ras a "Scheduled Jagir" under the Marwar Act died in July 1946 leaving the petitioner	 Thakur Bahadur Singh as his next heir. "Scheduled Jagirs" are	 under the Marwar Act	 impartable and their line of devolution was prescribed by section 182 thereof which ran: "Succession shall be governed in the case of Scheduled Jagirs by the rule of primogeniture. " The succession	 " however	 was not automatic but had to be recognised by the Government and a renewal granted in favour of the successor before his title to the jagir was perfected. Sections 183 185 of the Marwar Act which are of relevance in this connection	 ran: "section 183. All grants of Scheduled Jagirs are only for the life time of the holder	 and no person is entitled to succeed to such jagir until his succession is recognized and the grant is renewed in his favour by His Highness. section 184. Subject always to His Highness pleasure	 the grant of a Scheduled Jagir	 on the death of the holder	 shall be renewed in favour of the person entitled to succeed him in accordance with the provisions of this Act. section 185(1). A Scheduled Jagir	 on the death of the holder	 and until the renewal of the grant in favour of his successor	 shall be resumed by the Government and taken under direct management. Provided that the claimant to succession shall	 in the	 absence of special orders of His Highness be permitted to retain possession pending orders of His Highness regarding the claim	 if he is a direct lineal descendant in the male line of the last holder. (2). . . . (3). . . . (4). . . . The title of the petitioner to succeed to the jagir as the next heir of his father was recognised and a renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an 441 order dated March 18	 1952. Section 190 of the Marwar Act imposes an obligation on a succeeding heir whose title has been recognised and to whom a renewal of the jagir has been granted	 to make certain payments. This section runs: "section 190(1). When succession to a Scheduled Jagir is recognised by His Highness and renewal of the grant ordered	 the person in whose favour the grant is ordered to be renewed shall execute within one month of the communication to him of the orders	 a 'Kabuliyat ' for payment of Hukamnama and other fees payable in accordance with sub sections (2) and (3). (2). . . . . . (3). . . . . . The amount payable by the petitioner	 according to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act	 came to Rs. 30	000 and the respondent State demanded this sum. Before	 however	 the date of the order according recognition and granting renewal in favour of the petitioner	 the Rajasthan Act of 1952 had been passed and having received the assent of the President on February 13	 1952	 came into force on publication in the Gazette on February 16	 1952	 and under section 4 of this Act	 whose terms have been set out already	 the liability on the part of Jagirdars to pay "all tribute" to Government got extinguished. The question debated in this petition is whether the liability to pay 'hukamnama ' or other fees under section 190 of the Marwar Act is a 'tribute ' from the payment of which the Jagirdars are thus relieved. It is common ground	 subject to a submission of the learned Advocate General for the respondent State	 which we shall refer to a little later	 that if the 'hukamnama ' which the petitioner has been required to pay to the Government was a 'tribute ' within section 4 of the Rajasthan Act	 it would cease to be exigible and cannot be enforced from and after February 16	 1952	 because it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Jagirdar and 'hukamnama ' regarding which the demand has been made on him "is a demand which 56 442 is due under an existing Jagir law"	 viz.	 the Marwar Act. The precise question which now arises for our decision came up before the High Court of Rajasthan in 1955 on facts exactly parallel with the case before us and a Bench of that Court held in a case reported as Thakur Narpat Singh vs The State of Rajasthan (1) that 'hukamnama ' and the fees payable under section 190 of the Marwar Act were not within	%. 4(a) of the Rajasthan Act. Consequently	 the arguments on either side before us took the form of either supporting the reasoning contained in that judgment or in disputing its correctness. It therefore becomes necessary for us to examine the reasoning upon which the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court reached a conclusion adverse to the contention of the petitioner now before us. Before doing so	 however	 it is necessary to advert to a point sought to be raised by the learned Advocate General for Rajasthan for the respondent which would cut across all this debate. He sought to urge that section 4 of the Rajasthan Act was not retrospective and that as the recognition of the title of the Petitioner and the renewal of the grant of the jagir in his favour related back to July 1946 when the succession opened	 the Rajasthan Act could not be invoked to put an end to the obligation which had accrued years before it came into force notwithstanding that the orders of recognition and renewal were passed only in March 1952. In the circumstances of this case	 however	 and also regard being had to the point not having been raised in the answer filed by the State to the writ petition	 we did not consider it proper to permit the Advocate General to pursue the submission. We will now proceed to consider the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion reached by the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court in the case just now referred to. Stated briefly	 the ratio of their decision was as follows: Under the law governing jagir grants and the tenure on which they are held in Marwar	 a 'hukamnama ' is a levy chargeable for recognition of the succession of a person to a Scheduled Jagir (1) I.L.R. 443 of his deceased ancestor. The specific dues	 Rekh and Chakri enumerated in the definition of section 2(r) of the Rajasthan Act are those levied in Marwar	 the former being 8 per cent of the gross rental value of an estate and the second the cash equivalent of the obligation to supply horsemen or camelsowars or foot soldier	 	 by Jagirdars dependent upon the value of the estate. Similar payments are known as 'Rakam ' in the State of Bikaner and 'Chatund ' in the State of Udaipur	 these States being the components of the State of Rajasthan. All these dues	 Rekh	 Rakam	 Chatund and Chakri were annual and recurring payments made by Jagirdars. When therefore the definition in section 2(r) concluded with the words other charges of a similar nature '	 it must necessarily be held that these general words should be confined to charges which were also recurring. The 'hukamnama ' and other dues payable under section 190 of the Marwar Act	 however	 were not recurring payments and were in consideration of the ruler exercising his discretion to recognise a succession and grant renewal of the jagir in favour of the next heir. In other words	 these were payments due to the ruler in recognition of his sovereign right to the ownership of the land which was statutorily embodied in sections 169 170 of the Marwar Act which ran: "section 169. The ownership of all land vests in His Highness and all jagirs	 bhoms	 sansans	 dolis or similar proprietary interests are held and shall be deemed to be held as grant	 from His Highness. and section 170. All grants shall be held by the original grantee or his successors during His Highness ' pleasure. " The payments under section 190 of the Act therefore were not of the same category as the payments enumerated in section 2 (r) of the Rajasthan Act and hence could not be comprehended within the meaning of the expression 'tribute '. The same matter was also put in a slightly different form by saying that whereas the payments enumerated in the definition of 'tribute ' were those made by Jagirdars as such	 i.e.	 after they got into possession	 a 'hukamnama ' was a payment made not by a 144 Jagirdar but by a person who was merely a claimant to a jagir and as a condition of his title to it being recognised. The correctness of this reasoning was challenged before us by learned Counsel for the petitioner who urged that the learned Judges of the High Court did not accord sufficient consideration to the fact that the definition in section 2(r) was an 'inclusive ' definition and could	 therefore	 include others not falling within the enumerated types. In this connection	 learned Counsel relied upon the meaning of the word 'tribute ' in Webster 's New International Dictionary and in the Oxford English Dictionary	 Volume IT. In the former	 one of the meanings given is: "A tax	 impost	 duty	 rental	 or the like	 paid by a subject vassal to his sovereign or lord". and in the latter: "A tax or impost paid by one prince or state to another in acknowledgement of submission or as the price of peace	 security and protection". He therefore urged that the expression 'tribute ' in section 2(r) would include those which fell within the ordinary dictionary meaning of the term 	 in addition to those specifically enumerated therein. If the word were understood in its ordinary dictionary meaning without any statutory definition	 learned Counsel added	 the incidence of recurrence would not be a necessary attribute of the concept of a 'tribute '. The submission was that the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High court erred in confining the meaning of 'tribute ' to the enumerated payments and "other charges of a similar nature"	 without taking into account the fact that this was an inclusive and not an exhaustive or even an illustrative definition. We see force in these submissions and it must also be said that the argument in this form and the construction of section 2(r) from this aspect has not been considered by the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. We have	 therefore	 to examine whether the submission can be sustained. Our task is	 to discover whether the expression 'tribute '	 as it occurs in the Rajasthan Act	 includes payments of the type now in 445 controversy. Apart from the usual express saving contained in the opening words of section 2 that the definitions set out are to be applied "unless the context otherwise requires"	 the meaning of the word 'tribute ' has to be ascertained from a consideration of the various provisions of the Act and not merely from section 4(a) of the Act read in the light of the definition. It would be seen that in ultimate analysis the question of construction posed for our decision may be thus set out: The four specific enumerated dues in the definition in section 2(r) are recurring annual payments. "Other charges of a like nature" which follows this enumeration	 would obviously partake of that character and they would also have to be similarly annual. and recurring. This was the basis of the decision of the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and the correctness of this view up to this point cannot be and has not	 been disputed. The definition	 however	 being "inclusive" and not "meaning" these	 it is said it must "include" something else. It must	 however	 be added that the possibility cannot be ignored that the definition was made inclusive out of caution and with a view not to exclude any payment which jagirdars were making or were under an obligation to make	 to Government	 seeing that the Act was to apply to an integrated State composed of several States in which there might have been great diversity of nomenclature in designating these payments	 and so as not to exclude any payment which would squarely fall within the category regarding which provision was made in the operative portion of the enactment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that every payment by a Jagirdar to the Government	 whatever be the nature of the payment and whatever be the consideration therefore	 is included in the expression. If the expression 'tribute ' occurred only in section 4(a) in the operative provisions of the Act	 there might be much to be said for the view presented by learned Counsel for the petitioner and for invoking its dictionary meaning to ascertain the content of that word. The Act	 however	 has used the word 'tribute ' in several other sections and in different contexts and we 446 consider that the precise ambit of this expression of rather indefinite import as contemplated or intended by the framers of this Act has necessarily to be gathered from the entirety of the provisions. The 	word tribute ' was apparently no equivalent in the local languages	 so that it was obviously used as a convenient and compendious expression to designate certain imposts which were levied by the rulers of the several States which integrated to form the State of Rajasthan. Further	 this circumstance should obviously induce some caution before the dictionary meaning of the English word tribute ' is treated as expressing the intention of the framers of the Rajasthan Act. We shall therefore proceed to set out and consider the other provisions of the enactment in which the word is used to discover the intentions of the framers of the Act as to what they meant by it. Before proceeding further	 we should add	 that as under section 4(a) of the Rajasthan Act	 the payment of Land Revenue computed under it is to be the substitute for the 'tribute ' previously demandable or paid	 the manner in which the land revenue under the Act is determined would be relevant as throwing light on for what it is substituted. We have already set out the terms of section 4 of the Rajasthan Act under which in substitution of the payment of 'tribute ' all lands are made liable to the payment of land revenue. The amount of land revenue payable by a Jagirdar is fixed by section 8 and this is based in part on the annual rental income which could be derived from the jagir computed in the manner set out in sections 6 and 7. For our present purpose section 8 is of importance	 because the amount of 'tribute ' payable forms one of the factors for determining the amount of 'land revenue payable '. Section 8 enacts: "section 8. Amount of land revenue payable. The land revenue payable by a Jagirdar in respect of his jagir lands shall be (a) for the agricultural year 1951 52	 an amount equal to the amount of tribute payable by him to the Government for that year; (b) for the agricultural year 1952 53 and each of the six succeeding agricultural years 447 (i) in the case of jagir lands the annual rental income of which as determined under section 6 or section 7	 exceeds five hundred rupees but does not exceed five thousand rupees	 one sixteenth of such rental income or the amount of the tribute which was payable by the Jagirdar for the agricultural year 195051	 whichever is greater; (ii) in the case of jagir lands the rental income of which as determined under section 6 or section 7 exceeds five thousand rupees	 one eighth of such annual rental income or the amount of the tribute which was payable by the Jagirdar for the agricultural year 1950 51	 whichever is greater. Explanation. For the purpose of this clause the amount of tribute payable by a Jagirdar to the Government for the agricultural year 1950 51 shall be deemed to be the amount of such tribute less the amount of any tribute payable to such jagirdar by any person to whom the Jagirdar may have granted any of his jagir lands; (c) for the agricultural year 1959 60 and subsequent years	 one fourth of the rental income from the jagir lands as determined under sections 6 and 7; Provided that (i) where no tribute was payable by the Jagirdar before the commencement of the Act or where the whole of the tribute has been paid before such commencement	 the jagir lands shall be deemed to be exempt from the payment of land revenue for the agricultural year 1951 52; (ii) where the jagirdar has paid a part of the tribute before the commencement of this Acts	 the land revenue payable by him for the agricultural year 1951 52 shall be an amount equal 'to the balance of the tribute which would have been payable by him for that year if this Act had not been passed; and (iii) the Government may direct that for the purposes of clauses (b) and (e) of this section	 the rental income of any jagir land for all or any of the agricultural year mentioned in those clauses shall be 448 determined or redetermined on the basis of the rental income which actually accrued to the jagirdar from the jagir in such year or years	 as the case may be." It will be seen that this section speaks of tribute payable for the	 year specified 1951 52 or 1950 51and it is obvious that the tribute here referred to could only be the recurring payments like those enumerated in the definition in section 2(r) to which could be attributed the character of being a payment for a specific year. Besides	 it will be	 seen that under section 8(b) the land revenue payable for the seven agricultural years 1952 53 to 1959 60 is to be either a fraction of the annual rental income or "the amount of the tribute which would be payable by the Jagirdar for the year 1950 51 whichever is greater". Surely it would be most unreasonable to hold that if during the year 1950 51 a Jagirdar made a payment of 'hukamnama ' this ad hoe payment should be treated as part of the tribute for that year and the Jagirdar made liable to pay sums including 'hukamnama ' for the seven years 1952 53 to 1959 60. The main object of the Rajasthan Act was to effect resumption of jagir lands by eliminating intermediaries and the 'tribute ' payable by the erstwhile Jagirdars enters into the calculation for computing the compensation payable to them on such resumption. The second schedule to the Act sets out the principles governing the compensation payable to Jagirdars. It may broadly be stated that the compensation payable	 to Jagirdars is determined on the basis of a multiple of the net income of the basic year as determined under r. 1 of the second schedule. The net income is computed by first determining the gross income of the Jagirdars under various heads including the rental income and deducting therefrom certain outgoing which included the "tribute ' Rule 4 of schedule 2 provides: "4. Net income. The net income of a Jagirdar for the basic year shall be calculated by deducting from his gross income therefore	 (i) the amount that the Jagirdar would have 449 been liable to pay to the Government as tribute	 and	 in the case of grantee from a Jagirdar	 to the Jagirdar in respect of such grant	 for the basic year if this Act had not been passed; (ii) any sums of recurring nature due to the Government from the Jagirdar	 or in the case of grantee from the Jagirdar to the Jagirdar	 for the basic year on any account other than land revenue	; and . . . . . . It is impossible to conceive that the framers of the Act would have intended that the payment of a 'hukamnama ' in the basic year should have a permanent effect on the quantum of compensation payable to a Jagirdar under the provisions above extracted. In addition to the compensation for the presumption of the jagir under the provisions of the Rajasthan Act	 the Jagirdars are entitled to be paid a rehabilitation grant under Chapter VIII A of the Act. The method of calculation of this amount is set out in Schedule III of the Act and for this purpose Jagirdars are classified on a graduated scale into various categories depending on the gross income from the estate. This is followed by a proviso in these terms: "Provided that for the purpose of calculating the rehabilitation grant payable to a Jagirdar falling in this category such marginal adjustments shall be made as will ensure that a Jagirdar having a higher net income does not get an amount by way of rehabilitation grant which is less than that payable to a Jagirdar having a lower net income. Provided further that	 in comparing Jagirdars with different amounts of income for the purpose of the first proviso to this sub clause	 (i) Jagirdars who were riot paying tribute shall be compared only with Jagirdars who were not paying tribute	 (ii) Jagirdars who were paying tribute shall be compared only with Jagirdars who were paying ' tribute	 (iii) Jagirdars who were paying any sums of 57 450 recurring nature referred to in sub clause (ii) of clause 4 of the Second Schedule shall be compared only with Jagirdars Who were paying such sums	 and (iv) in respect of Jagirdars who were paying tribute or any sums of recurring nature referred to in sub. clause (ii) of clause 4 of the Second Schedule at different scales	 the Government shall prescribe a percentage of the gross income at which the amount of tribute or such sums in respect of each Jagirdar shall be calculated irrespective of whether the amount of tribute or such sums of recurring nature that were being actually paid by him. " What we have said earlier about the construction of the word 'tribute ' in r. 4 of Schedule II would equally apply to the construction of that expression as it occurs in the provision extracted from Schedule III. Notwithstanding therefore that the definition in section 2(r) of the Rajasthan Act is 'inclusive ' it appears to us from an examination of the meaning of the word as used in the operative provisions of the Act	 that it could refer only to recurring payments which could be said to be attributable to particular years and not to the type of ad hoc payments of which hukamnamas and patta fees are examples. It might very well be that the words at the end of section 2(r) "other charges of a similar nature" might not exhaust all the payments which a 'tribute ' connotes but still if the rest of the Act indicates unmistakably the intention	 that the word 'tribute ' has been used in a special sense taking into account the law and usage obtaining in the locality	 these cannot be disregarded in favour of a wider construction based merely upon the dictionary meaning of the expression. We need hardly add that the provision to which we have adverted should suffice to show that the construction put forward by learned Counsel for the petitioner would work to the grave disadvantage of the Jagirdars and would cause them deprivation which could never have been intended. We have thus reached the same conclusion as the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court	 though on a different line of reasoning. 451 On the construction which we have adopted of the expression 'tribute ' in section 4 of the Rajasthan Act the petitioner can have no legal or legitimate grievance against the enforcement of the payment made against him. The petition fails and is dismissed. There will st	 be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.

The title of the petitioner to succeed to the jagir as the next heir of his father who died in July 1946 was recognised and a renewal granted in his favour by the Government by an order dated March 8	 1952. Section 190 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act	 imposed an obligation on the succeeding heir to 1949	 execute within one month of the communication to him of the order a kabuliyat for payment of hukammama and other fees according to the scale of fees prescribed under the Act	 and the amount payable by the petitioner thereby which came to Rs. 30	000 was demanded by the respondent State. In the meantime	 the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act	 1952	 had been passed and came into force on February 16	 1952	 and section 4(a) of this Act enacted that "the liability of all jagirdars to pay tribute to the Government under any existing jagir Law shall cease"	 while "tribute" was defined by section 2(r) in the following terms . "Tribute ' in relation to a jagir	 includes rekh	 rakam	 chatund	 chakri or other charge of a similar nature". The petitioner challenged the legality of the demand on the ground that the liability to pay hukamnama was a tribute within the meaning of that word in section 4(a). Held	 that notwithstanding that the definition of the ex pression "tribute" in section 2(r) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act	 1952	 is inclusive	 on an examination of the meaning of the word as used in the operative provisions of the Act	 it could refer only to recurring payments which could be said to be attributable to particular years and not to the type of ad hoc payments of which hukamnama was an example. Accordingly	 the liability to pay hukamnama is not compre hended within the expression "tribute" under section 4(a)	 and	 consequently	 was not extinguished by the provisions of the Rajasthan Act of 1952. Thakur Narpat Sinah vs The State of Rajasthan	 I.L.R. 	 referred to.