Implied grant and land revenue powers upheld, making former rulers' jagirs liable to resumption under the Act.

Cis-Sutlej jagirs were treated as jagirs within section 2(1)(a) because the former rulers had been reduced to ordinary subjects and the continued payment of land revenue was referable to an implied grant arising from the historical settlement arrangement. The Court rejected the absence of an express grant as fatal and held the jagirs liable to resumption under the Act. It further held that the Punjab Legislature had competence to retrospectively define "State Government" so as to include predecessor Governments, since the subject fell within land and land revenue and the validating amendment was intra vires. The challenge to the resumption proceedings therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Cis-Sutlej jagirs were "jagirs" within section 2(1)(a) of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957, so as to be liable to resumption; (ii) Whether the Punjab Legislature had competence to enact and validate the definition of "State Government" by the amending Act so as to cover grants made by predecessor Governments.

Issue (i): Whether the Cis-Sutlej jagirs were "jagirs" within section 2(1)(a) of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957, so as to be liable to resumption.

Analysis: The lands were not held as estates under section 2(1)(b), but as rights to receive land revenue, bringing the controversy within section 2(1)(a). The historical record showed that the chiefs, though originally rulers, were progressively divested of sovereign powers by the British, and by 1849 had become ordinary subjects. Once their sovereign status had disappeared, the continued payment of land revenue to them could only be explained as arising from an implied grant. The Court treated the position as analogous to the earlier decision concerning Bhomicharas, held that a grant may be implied from the surrounding sovereign acts and settlement arrangements, and rejected the contention that absence of an express grant or the earlier proposal for resumption and re-grant negatived implication.

Conclusion: The Cis-Sutlej jagirs fell within section 2(1)(a) and were liable to resumption under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the Punjab Legislature had competence to enact and validate the definition of "State Government" by the amending Act so as to cover grants made by predecessor Governments.

Analysis: The subject of resumption of jagirs was treated as falling within legislative fields relating to land and land revenue. The amendment inserting an enlarged definition of "State Government" was given retrospective effect, and it merely clarified that predecessor Governments were included. Since the principal legislation itself was within competence, the validating amendment on the same subject was also within competence. The challenge that the amendment was colourable or amounted to legislation on a Central subject was rejected.

Conclusion: The amendment was intra vires and effective to include predecessor Governments within the expression "State Government".

Final Conclusion: The Act validly applied to the jagirs in question, and the challenge to the resumption proceedings failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where former rulers have been reduced to the status of subjects and continue to receive land revenue under a settled arrangement, the right to such revenue may be treated as an implied grant; a legislature competent over land and land revenue may validly define predecessor Governments within the statutory expression "State Government" for purposes of resumption.

---