Constitutional validity of rent-fixing land revenue provisions upheld; territorial classification, fair rent regulation, and retrospective application sustained.

Sections 81 to 86 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act were upheld as constitutionally valid. The SC held that territorial classification under Article 14 was permissible because local conditions could differ, and the petitioners had not shown Marwar to be similarly situated to other parts of Rajasthan. Article 19(1)(f) was not breached because the right to hold property was treated as including only a right to recover reasonable rent, and fair rent-fixing legislation was permissible. Section 86 was also sustained: requiring recorded reasons for applying rent rates from an earlier date prevented the discretion from being arbitrary, and retrospective operation alone did not invalidate it. Article 31(2) was rejected because regulation of landlord-tenant relations and reduction of rent was not compulsory acquisition.

---

---

Issues: Whether sections 81 to 86 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act No. XL of 1949 were unconstitutional as offending Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution, including on the ground that section 86 conferred arbitrary power to apply rent rates retrospectively.

Analysis: The challenge under Article 14 failed because territorial classification was held to be permissible where local conditions differed, and the petitioners had not shown that the situation in Marwar was comparable with other parts of Rajasthan. The fact that settlement operations might be undertaken area-wise and on different dates did not itself create unconstitutional inequality. The challenge under Article 19(1)(f) also failed because the right to hold property was treated as including only a right to recover reasonable rent, and legislation fixing fair and equitable rent was held not to infringe that right. The exclusion of abnormal years in computing average collections was found to be a normal and fair feature of tenancy legislation. Section 86 was upheld against the objections based on retrospective operation and alleged arbitrariness because the provision expressly required reasons for applying the rate from an earlier date, and the wide discretion was not treated as uncontrolled or unreasonable. The argument under Article 31(2) failed because regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship and reduction of rent was not treated as compulsory acquisition or taking of property without compensation.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions were held valid and not in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) or 31(2).

---