1954 (4) TMI 69 - HC - Indian Laws

Court validates Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 extension by Rajpramukh, affirming compliance with legal requirements.

Sadaria And Anr. Versus The Rajasthan Board Of Revenue And Anr.

The Court upheld the validity of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, and the extension by the Rajpramukh, ruling that it complied with ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949.2. Legality of the extension of the Ordinance by the Rajpramukh.3. Compliance with Article 212A of the Constitution.4. Merits of the case regarding the dispossession and possession of land.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949:The Ordinance No. 9 of 1949 was issued by the Rajpramukh on 21-6-1949. The State of Rajasthan was formed on 7-4-1949, and by Article 10(3) of the Covenant, the Rajpramukh was authorized to make and promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good government of the State of Rajasthan. The Ordinance No. 9 of 1949 was enacted in exercise of the said powers, and was, therefore, a perfectly valid piece of legislation on the date it was enacted.2. Legality of the Extension of the Ordinance by the Rajpramukh:The extension of the Ordinance beyond the initial two-year period was challenged on the grounds that it was ultra vires. The argument was two-fold:- Firstly, it was contended that the extension was made by the Rajpramukh in his executive capacity, not as a legislative authority, and such delegation of legislative power was invalid.- Secondly, it was argued that if the extension was made in exercise of legislative authority, it had to comply with Article 212A of the Constitution, which it did not.The Court held that Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Ordinance did not delegate any power to the Rajpramukh but indicated that the Ordinance might be extended by the Rajpramukh, who was the legislative authority at the time. The notification extending the Ordinance was issued in accordance with this provision and was, therefore, valid.3. Compliance with Article 212A of the Constitution:The petitioners contended that the extension did not follow the procedure prescribed under Article 212A of the Constitution, which required the preparation of a Bill and the Rajpramukh's assent. The Court noted that the Rajpramukh had the power to legislate under Article 385 of the Constitution, and any irregularity in the mode of exercise of that power would not invalidate the law made and promulgated by the Rajpramukh. The affidavit filed by the Government indicated that the draft of the notification was submitted to and approved by the Rajpramukh, fulfilling the technical procedure required for draft legislation.4. Merits of the Case Regarding the Dispossession and Possession of Land:The petitioners argued that they were declared to be in lawful possession under Section 145, Cr. P. C., and should remain in possession until evicted according to law. The Court pointed out that the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance superseded other laws, including the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Board of Revenue found that Bhomla was in possession until 1-7-1952 and had been dispossessed by Sadaria. The provisions of the Tenants Protection Ordinance provided a remedy for dispossession even if it occurred prior to two months of the preliminary order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Therefore, the order of the Board of Revenue was upheld.Conclusion:The petition was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The Court concluded that the extension of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was valid and complied with the necessary legal requirements. The merits of the case regarding possession were also decided in favor of the respondent, Bhomla.