TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Marwar Land Revenue Act Sections</h1> <h3>Shri Kishan Singh And Others Versus The State Of Rajasthan And Others</h3> Shri Kishan Singh And Others Versus The State Of Rajasthan And Others - 1955 AIR 795, 1955 SCR (2) 531 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 81 to 86 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949 under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31(2) of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Constitutionality under Article 14The petitioners argued that the Marwar Land Revenue Act applies only to Marwar and not to the whole State of Rajasthan, making it discriminatory. The court rejected this contention, stating that Article 14 prohibits unequal treatment of persons similarly situated. The petitioners failed to establish that conditions in other areas of Rajasthan were similar to Marwar. The court noted that tenants in Marwar paid more rent and cesses than those in other areas, justifying separate legislation. The court cited Bowman v. Lewis, affirming that states can have different laws for different areas based on municipal considerations and welfare. The court concluded that tenancy legislation restricted to a portion of a state does not contravene Article 14.Issue 2: Constitutionality under Article 19(1)(f)The petitioners contended that the Act deprived landlords of their right to freely realize rents, infringing their right to hold property. The court held that the fundamental right to hold property includes the right to recover reasonable rent. Legislation aiming to fix fair and equitable rent does not invade this right. The provision in Section 82(1)(a) to exclude abnormal years from average collections was deemed reasonable, as it benefits both tenants and landlords. The court found no merit in the argument that this provision was a device to reduce rent.Issue 3: Constitutionality under Article 31(2)The petitioners argued that Section 86, allowing retrospective application of rent rates, deprived landlords of accrued rent without compensation, violating Article 31(2). The court held that laws regulating landlord-tenant relations, even if reducing landlord rights, do not constitute taking property under Article 31(2). The court referenced Thakur Jagannath Baksh Singh v. United Provinces, where it was held that regulating landlord-tenant relations is not confiscatory legislation.Issue 4: Arbitrary Discretion under Section 86The petitioners argued that Section 86 conferred arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion on the Settlement Officer to apply rent rates retrospectively. The court noted that Section 86 requires the Settlement Officer to provide reasons for such decisions. The court emphasized that wide discretion is not necessarily arbitrary and that revenue and settlement matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts. The Board of Revenue has revisional jurisdiction over settlement orders, ensuring checks and balances. The court concluded that the power conferred by Section 86 is reasonable and does not infringe fundamental rights.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that Sections 81 to 86 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949 do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(f), or 31(2) of the Constitution. The petitions were dismissed without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
