{"id":23741,"date":"1952-05-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-05-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952"},"modified":"2016-08-23T14:45:08","modified_gmt":"2016-08-23T09:15:08","slug":"visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952","title":{"rendered":"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 27 May, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 27 May, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1083<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVISWESHWAR RAO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH(AND OTHER CASES)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/05\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1083\n\n\nACT:\n    Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietory Rights (Estates,\nMahals,\t Ahenated Lands) Act (1 of 1951)--Law for  abolision\nof  proprietory\t estates and  tenures---Compensation  inade-\nquate--Jurisdiction  of Court to inquire in to\tvalidity  of\nAct--Right  of\teminent domain--Necessity of  provision\t for\npayment\t of compensation and public purpose--Spirit of\tCon-\nstitution--Delegation  of legislative powers--Fraud  on\t the\nConstitution--Passing of Bills--Certificate of Speaker\tthat\nBill was passed--Conclusiveness--Omission to note on  record\nthat  Bill was passed--Effect--Reserving law for  assent  of\nPresident--Governor's signature to Bill, whether  necessary-\n\"Law,\"\t    \"  Legislature\",\t\"Public\t  purpose\"   meanings\nof--Compulsory\t acquisition  of  malguzari  villages,\t and\nproperty set apart as private property of Ruler under  cove-\nnant   of   merger----Legality----Constitution\t of   India,\n1950--Constitution   (First Amendment)\tAct, 1951-Arts.\t 31,\n31-A, 31-B, 362, 363.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Held by the Full Court (PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MAHAJAN,\nMUKHERJEA,  DAS and  CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR  JJ.)--The  Madhya\nPradesh\t Abolition of Proprietory Rights  {Estates.  Mahals,\nAlienated Lands}, Act (1 of 1951) is valid in its  entirety.\nIn  view of the provisions contained in arts. 31  (4J,\t31-A\nand  31-B of the Constitution the court has no\tjurisdiction\nto  enquire into an objection to the validity of the Act  on\nthe  ground that it does not provide for adequate  compensa-\ntion.\tThe Act does not involve any delegation of  legisla-\ntive  powers  and the provisions  relating  to\tcompensation\ntherein are not a fraud on the Constitution.\n    Held  also, that the certificate of the Speaker  on\t the\noriginal Bill when it was submitted to the President for his\nassent,\t that the Bill was passed by the House\twas  conclu-\nsive. proof that the Bill was passed, and the mere fact that\nthere  was nothing on the record of the proceedings to\tshow\nthat  the motion that the Bill be passed was voted upon\t and\ncarried,  as required by rule 20(1) of the Rules  of  Proce-\ndure,  could not invalidate the Act.  Per  PATANJALI  SASTRI\nC.J.__In  any case, the omission to put the motion  formally\nto  the\t House, even if true, was, in the  circumstances  no\nmore  than  a mere irregularity of procedure as it  was\t not\ndisputed that the overwhelming majority of the members\n  1021\npresent were in favour of carrying the motion and no dissen-\ntient voice was actually raised.\n    Held  further, (i) that though art. 31(3) speaks  of  a\"\nlaw\" being reserved for the consideration of the  President,\nthe Constitution does not contemplate that before submitting\na  Bill which has been passed by a Legislative Assembly\t for\nthe  assent of the President, the Governor should  give\t his\nassent to it;\n    (ii)  that\tthe President can perform  both\t the  duties\nentrusted  to him under art. 200 and art. 31 (3) and {4)  at\none  and the same time; he need not give his  assent  twice,\nonce to make the Bill a law under art. 200 and then give his\nassent once more in order to make the law effective  against\nart. 31 (2); the word \"Legislature\" used in this  connection\nin  art. 31(4) means the House or Houses of Legislature\t and\ndoes not include the Governor;\n    (iii) that though malguzari villages are not included in\nthe  expression \"estate\" as defined in art. 31-A, art.\t31-B\n(which\tis  not\t merely illustrative of art.  31-A,  but  an\nindependent provision) validated the Act even in respect  of\nmalguzari villages, and since art. 31 (4) is not limited  to\n\"estates\" its provisions also saved the law in its entirety;\n    (iv)  Article 362 does not prohibit the  acquisition  of\nproperties  set apart as private properties of a Ruler by  a\ncovenant of merger.\n    Per MAHAJAN and DAs JJ.--In any event, the\tjurisdiction\nof  the Court to decide disputes which arise out of a  cove-\nnant of merger was barred by art. 363.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t  PETITIONS under article 32 of the Constitution  of
\nIndia  for  enforcement of fundamental\trights.\t  (Petitions
\nNos. 166, 228, 230, 237, 245, 246, 257, 268, 280 to 285, 287
\nto  289,  317, 318 and 487 of 1951).  The facts\t which\tgave
\nrise  to  these petitions and the arguments of\tcounsel\t are
\nstated in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    B. Somayya (V. N. Swami, with him) for the petitioner in
\nPetition No. 166 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    N.S. Bindra (P.S. Safeer, with him)\t for the  petitioner
\nin Petition No. 317 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    V.N.  Swarni for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.\t228,
\n230,  237, 245, 246, 280 to 285 of 1951, 257 and 287 to\t 289
\nof 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    K.B. Asthana for the petitioners in\t Petition No. 26  of
\n1951.\n<\/p>\n
  S.N. Mukherjee for the petitioner in Petition No. 318 of
\n1951.\n<\/p>\n
1022<\/span><\/p>\n
    M.N. Jog for the petitioner in Petition No. 487 of 1951.
\n T.L.  Shivde  (Advocate-General of   Madhya Pradesh),\twith
\nT.P. Naik for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1951. May 2, 5, The judgment of the CHIEF JUSTICE print-
\ned  at pp. 893-916 supra covers these cases  also.  MAHAJAN,
\nMUKHERJEA, DAS and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ. delivered  sepa-
\nrate judgments.\n<\/p>\n
MAHAJAN J.\n<\/p>\n
Petition No. 166 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    This is a petition under article 32 of the\tConstitution
\nof  India by Shri Visheswar Rao, zamindar and proprietor  of
\nAhiri zamindari, an estate as defined in section 2(3) of the
\nCentral Provinces Land Revenue Act, II of 1917, and situated
\nin  tehsil Sironcha, district Chanda (Madhya  Pradesh),\t for
\nthe  enforcement of his fundamental right to property  under
\narticle 31(1) of the Constitution by the issue of an  appro-
\npriate\twrit  or a direction, to the  respondent  State\t re-
\nstraining  it from disturbing his possession of the  estate,
\nand  eighty  malguzari villages situate\t in  the  Garchiroli
\ntehsil of the same district.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t petitioner and his ancestors have been\t owning\t and
\nenjoying  these\t properties in full  proprietary  right\t for
\nseveral\t generations  past.   On the 5th  April,  1950,\t the
\nMadhya\tPradesh Legislative Assembly enacted an\t Act  called
\nthe Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act.\t The
\nAct  received  the assent of the President of India  on\t the
\n22nd January, 1951, and was published in the Madhya  Pradesh
\nGazette\t on the 26th January, 1951, as Act I of 1951.  By  a
\nnotification  in a gazette extraordinary issued on the\t27th
\nJanuary,  1951,\t the Madhya Pradesh  Government\t fixed\t31st
\nMarch,\t1951.  as the date of vesting of the  estates  under
\nsection\t 3 of the Act.\tThe petitioner thus was to lose\t his
\nestate and lands on the 31st March, 1951. On the 9th  March,
\n1951,  i.e.,  before  the vesting  date,  he  presented\t the
\npresent application to this court for the issue of appropri-
\nate writs against the Government prohibiting it from  taking
\npossession of his properties.  It was alleged
\n1023<\/span>
\nthat the Madhya Pradesh Act, I of 1951, was unconstitutional
\nand  void and infringed the fundamental rights of the  peti-
\ntioner in a variety of ways.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t a  proper appreciation of the ground on  which\t the
\nvalidity of the Act is being challenged, it is necessary  to
\nset out the relevant provisions of the Act and to state\t the
\nfacts which led to this enactment.\n<\/p>\n
    Madhya  Pradesh  is a composite  State,  comprising\t the
\nCentral\t Provinces, Berar and the merged territories. By  an
\nagreement  of merger made between-the rulers\t  of  States
\nand  the  Dominion of India dated the 15th  December,  1947,
\ncertain territories which at one time were under the  Indian
\nStates Agency and were held by these rulers were  integrated
\nwith  the Dominion. The integration actually took  place  on
\nthe  1st January, 1948. On the 1st August, 1949, the  States
\nwere  merged  in the Madhya Pradesh. There were in  all\t 106
\nestates in Madhya Pradesh as defined in section 2(3) of\t Act
\nI of 1951 and held by zamindars. Most of the lands are owned
\nby malguzars of mahals in the status of “Malkan cabza”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t land system prevailing in Madhya Pradesh is  malgu-
\nzari  (except in certain areas where the ryotwari system  is
\nin  vogue), the malguzar being an intermediary\tbetween\t the
\nState  and  the tiller.\t Land is also held on a\t variety  of
\nsubordinate tenures by absolute occupancy tenants, occupancy
\ntenants, ryots, thikedars, mafidars, ilaqadars, etc.
\n    Land  revenue in Madhya Pradesh was last assessed  under
\nthe  Central  Provinces Land Revenue Act, II of\t 1917.\t The
\nestate\tholders pay land revenue on the lands  comprised  in
\nthe estates at a concession rate. The payment is technically
\ncalled “tekoli”.  In 1939 there was an adhoc increase in the
\namount\tof tekoli by the Central Provinces Revision of\tLand
\nRevenue Estates Act, I of 1939.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tthe 3rd September, 1946, the Central  Provinces\t and
\nBerar  Legislative  Assembly  passed a\tresolution  for\t the
\nelimination  of intermediaries\tbetween the ‘State  and\t the
\npeasant. Soon after the passing of this
\n1024<\/span>
\nresolution  several  laws were enacted, it is said,  with  a
\nview to achieve this result, the impugned Act being the last
\nof that series. In 1947, the Central Provinces Land  Revenue
\nEstates Act, XXV of 1947, was enacted.\tThe revenue  assess-
\nment,  viz.,  tekoli, on the estates was, we are  told,\t en-
\nhanced in some places from thirty to fifty per cent. of\t the
\nfull  jama and in others from forty to sixty per  cent.\t  In
\nthe same year was enacted the Central Provinces Land Revenue
\nRevision  Mahals Act, XXVI of 1947. The land  assessment  on
\nmalguzari  villages  was, it is alleged, raised\t to  75\t per
\ncent. from 45 to 50 per cent. of malguzari assets. This\t was
\ndone  without  recourse to a settlement. In  1948  came\t the
\nCentral\t PrOvinces and Berar Revocation of  Exemptions\tAct,
\nXXXVII of 1948, making persons exempted from payment of land
\nrevenue\t liable for it. This legislation, it is\t urged,\t re-
\nsulted in the reduction of the net income of the proprietors
\nto  a large extent. On the 11th October, 1949, the  impugned
\nAct  was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly.  It\t was
\nreferred  to a Select Committee on the 15th  October,  1949;
\nthe  Select Committee reported on the 9th March,  1950,\t the
\nreport was published on the 17th March, 1950, and was  taken
\ninto consideration on the 29th March. 1950, by the Assembly.
\nOn the 30th March, 1950, the opposition moved for the circu-
\nlation of the Bill. The circulation motion was negatived  on
\nthe  3rd April, 1950, and the Bill was discussed  clause  by
\nclause and the clauses were passed between the 3rd of  April
\nand the 5th of April.  On the 5th April, 1950, the member in
\ncharge of the Bill moved as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
    “Speaker  Sir, I now move that the Central\tProvinces  &
\nBerar  Abolition  of Proprietary  Rights  (Estates,  Mahals,
\nAlienated  Lands) Bill, 1949 (No. 64 of 1949) as  considered
\nby the House be passed into law.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  Hon’ble  the Speaker said:”Motion moved,  that  the
\nCentral\t Provinces & Berar Abolition of\t Proprietary  Rights
\n(Estates,  Mahals,  Alienated Lands) Bill, 1949 (No.  64  of
\n1949) as considered by the House be passed into law,”\n<\/p>\n
1025<\/span><\/p>\n
    A  number  of speeches were made at\t the  third  reading
\nstage. The opposition was in a hopeless minority. The  trend
\nof  the speeches was of a laudatory character,\teach  member
\nhailing\t the Bill as a piece of great reform in\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t land  system. No motion of a  dilatory\t nature\t was
\ntabled\tand  as\t a matter of fact there\t was  no  opposition
\nwhatsoever  to\tthe passing of the Bill.  Some\tmembers\t ex-
\npressed\t the opinion that the provisions of the Act did\t not
\ngo  far\t enough, others thought that the  provisions  as  to
\ncompensation  should have been more liberal, but  there\t was
\nnone who was for rejecting the Bill as it stood.  The report
\nof  the proceedings of the5th April, 1950, does not  contain
\nthe  note that the motion that the Bill be passed  into\t law
\nwas carried.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t omission  of this note in the\tproceedings  of\t the
\nlegislature has furnished a basis for the argument that\t the
\nBill was never passed into law.\t The proceedings were print-
\ned on the 21st June, 1950, and were signed by the Speaker on
\nthe 1st October, 1950. The original BiLl that was  submitted
\nto  the\t President for his assent was printed  on  the\t29th
\nApril,\t1950,  and it bears on it the\tcertificate  of\t the
\nSpeaker dated the  10th May, 1950, stating that the Bill was
\nduly passed by the legislature on the 5th April, 1950.\tThis
\ncertificate  was signed by the Speaker a  considerable\ttime
\nahead  of his signing the proceedings.\tThe Act, as  already
\nstated,\t received  the assent of the President on  the\t22nd
\nJanuary,  1951,\t and  was published in\tthe  Madhya  Pradesh
\nGazette\t on the 26th January, 1951, as Madhya Pradesh Act  I
\nof 1951.\n<\/p>\n
     Against  the constitutionality of this Act a  number  of
\npetitions  were\t made in the High Court of Nagpur  but\tthey
\nwere  all  dismissed by that court on the 9th  April,  1951,
\nwhile  this petition along with some others was\t pending  in
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
The preamble of the Act is in these terms :–\n<\/p>\n
    “An Act to provide for the acquisition of the rights  of
\nproprietors  in\t estates.  mahals,  alienated  villages\t and
\nalienated lands in Madhya Pradesh and
\n     132<\/span>
\n1026<\/span>
\nto  make provision for other matters connected\t therewith.”
\n  The  legislation clearly falls within entry 36 of List  II
\nof the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.  ‘the    Madhya
\nPradesh Legislature had therefore undoubted   competence  to
\nenact  it.  The Act is divided into  eleven    chapters\t and
\nthree  schedules.  Chapter II deals with   “the\t vesting  of
\nproprietary  rights  in the State and\t states\t the  conse-
\nquences of the vesting. Section 3 is in\t  these terms :–\n<\/p>\n
     “Save as otherwise provided in this Act, on and\tfrom
\na  date\t to be specified by a notification by  the     State
\nGovernment  in this behalf, all proprietary rights    in  an
\nestate, mahal, alienated village or alienated\tland, as the
\ncase  may  be, in the area specified in\t the\tnotification
\nvesting\t in a proprietor of such estate,   mahal,  alienated
\nvillage, alienated land, or in a person\t  having interest in
\nsuch  proprietary right through the  proprietor, shall\tpass
\nfrom  such proprietor or such\tother person to and vest  in
\nthe  State  for the purposes\t  State free of\t all  encum-
\nbrances\t ………….”.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  4 provides that after the publication of\t the
\nnotification under section 3, all rights, title and interest
\nvesting\t in the proprietor or any person having interest  in
\nsuch  proprietary right through the proprietor in such\tarea
\nincluding  land\t (cultivable or barren), grass\tland.  scrub
\njungle,\t forest,  trees,  fisheries,  wells,  tanks,  ponds,
\nwater-channels,\t ferries,  pathways,  village  sites,  hats,
\nbazars\tand melas; and in all subsoil, including rights,  if
\nany,  in  mines and minerals, whether being worked  or\tnot,
\nshall  cease and be vested in the State for purposes of\t the
\nState  free  of all encumbrances; but  that  the  proprietor
\nshall  continue to retain the possession of  his  homestead,
\nhome-farm  land, and in the Central Provinces, also of\tland
\nbrought under cultivation by him after the agricultural year
\n1948-49\t but before the date of vesting-  The proprietor  is
\nentitled to recover any sums which became due to him  before
\nthe  date  of vesting by virtue of his\tproprietary  rights.
\nAll  open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic\tpur-
\nposes, all buildings, places
\n   1027<\/span>
\nof  worship, wells situated in and trees standing  on  lands
\nincluded in such enclosures or house sites etc. continue  to
\nremain in possession of the proprietor and are to be settled
\nwith  him by the State Government on such terms\t and  condi-
\ntions as it may determine. Similarly, certain private wells,
\ntrees, tanks and groves continue to remain in possession  of
\nthe  proprietor\t or other person who may  be  interested  in
\nthem.\tChapter III deals with the assessment  of  compensa-
\ntion. It is provided in section 8 that the State  Government
\nshall pay compensation to the proprietor in accordance\twith
\nthe  rules  contained in Schedule I. Besides the  amount  so
\ndetermined,  Government\t has  to pay  compensation  for\t any
\namount spent on the construction of a tank or well used\t for
\nagricultural  purposes where such tank or well vests in\t the
\nState  Government.  In addition to all\tthese  amounts,\t the
\nState  Government has to pay compensation for  lands  within
\nthe area of a municipality or cantonment in accordance\twith
\nthe  rules  contained in Schedule II. The  compensation\t for
\ndivestment  of proprietary rights becomes due from the\tdate
\nof vesting and it is enacted that it shall carry interest at
\nthe rate of two and a half per cent. per annum from the date
\nof  vesting  to the date of payment. Section 9\tprovides  as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
    “The  compensation payable under section 8 may,  in\t ac-
\ncordance with the rules made in this behalf. be paid in\t one
\nor more of the following modes, namely:–\n<\/p>\n
     (i) in cash in full or in annual instalments not exceed-
\ning thirty;\n<\/p>\n
    (ii) in bonds either negotiable or not negotiable carry-
\ning  interest  at the rate specified in sub-section  (4)  of
\nsection\t 8 and of guaranteed face value maturing  within   a
\nspecified  period not  exceeding thirty years.
\n    The\t other\tsections in this chapter deal  with  interim
\npayment\t and  appointment of compensation officers  and\t lay
\ndown  the procedure for the determination  of  compensation.
\nSchedule I provides that the amount
\n1028<\/span>
\nof compensation in the Central Provinces and in Berar  shall
\nbe  ten times the net income determined in  accordance\twith
\nthe rules mentioned in the schedule.  In merged\t territories
\nthe compensation is payable on a sliding scale varying\tfrom
\ntwo  times  to ten times the net income.  Schedule  11\tlays
\ndown  the  measure of compensation on a scale  varying\tfrom
\nfive  to fifteen times the assessment on the land as  speci-
\nfied in the schedule.  Section 2 of Schedule I provides\t for
\nthe calculation of the gross income by adding the amount  of
\nincome\treceived by a proprietor from the aggregate  of\t the
\nrents from the tenants as recorded in the jamabandi for\t the
\nprevious  agricultural\tyear;  the siwai  income,  that\t is,
\nincome from various sources such as jalkar, bankar, phalkar,
\nhats,  bazars, melas, grazing and village forest  calculated
\nat  two times the income recorded in the current  settlement
\nof  1923;  and\tthe consent money  on  transfer\t of  tenancy
\nlands–the  average of transactions recorded in the  village
\npapers\tfor  ten years preceding the  agricultural  year  in
\nwhich the date of vesting falls.  The schedule also provides
\nthe  method of determination of the gross income of a  mahal
\nas  well as of an alienated village or alienated land  sepa-
\nrately.\t It  also  provides for the  determination  of\tthis
\nincome in the case of mines and forests. The method suggest-
\ned  for\t assessing the net income is that out of  the  gross
\nincome\tthe following items have to be deducted,  i.e.,\t the
\nassessed  land\trevenue, sums payable  during  the  previous
\nagricultural year on account of casses and local rates,\t the
\naverage\t of  income-tax paid in respect of  income  received
\nfrom  big forests during the period of\tthirty\tagricultural
\nyears preceding the agricultural year in Which the  relevant
\ndate  falls and cost of management varying from 8 to 15\t per
\ncent. of the gross annual income on incomes varying from Rs.
\n2 000 to Rs.  15,000.  It is further provided that  notwith-
\nstanding  anything contained in sub-rule (2) the net  income
\nshall  in no case be reduced to less than five per cent.  of
\nthe  gross income. Chapter IV deals with certain  incidental
\nmatters\t in  respect of the determination of  the  debts  of
\nproprietors. Its
\n1029<\/span>
\nprovisions are analogous to the provisions of Debt Concilia-
\ntion or Relief of Indebtedness Act. It is provided in  Chap-
\nter V how the actual amount of compensation is to be  deter-
\nmined  and paid.  Chapter VI deals with that part of  Madhya
\nPradesh\t which is defined as Central Provinces in  the\tAct.
\nIt  is provided herein’ that a proprietor who has  been\t di-
\nvested\tof his estate will have malik-makbuza rights in\t his
\nhomefarm  lands.  Absolute occupancy tenants  and  occupancy
\ntenants can also acquire malik-makbuza rights. Provision  is
\nmade for reservation of grazing lands and for the collection
\nof land revenue.  Similar provisions are made in Chapter VII
\nin  respect of management and tenures of land in the  merged
\nterritories  Chapter VIII deals with management and  tenures
\nof lands in Berar. Separate provision  has been made for the
\ndetermination  of compensation payable to lessees  of  mines
\nand  minerals\tunder the provisions of section 218  of\t the
\nCentral\t Provinces  Land Revenue Act and section 44  of\t the
\nBerar  Land  Revenue Code there is a  presumption  that\t all
\nmines  and minerals belong to the State and the\t proprietary
\nrights in them could be granted by the State to any  person.
\nWherever a right of minerals has been so assigned, provision
\nhas  been  made regarding its acquisition  and\tthe   conse-
\nquences\t as resulting from such acquisition.  The  Act\tpro-
\nvides for the giving of rehabilitation grant to expropriated
\nproprietors within a certain range provided for in  Schedule
\nIII.   The last chapter in the Act deals with  miscellaneous
\nmatters including the power of making rules.
\n    The\t main  purpose\tof the Act is to  bring\t the  actual
\ntillers of the soil in direct contact with the State by\t the
\nelimination of intermediary holders.  In short, the Act aims
\nat  converting malguzari into ryotwari land system. It\talso
\naims  at  giving to the gram panchayats\t the  management  of
\ncommon lands freed from the grip of proprietors and  contem-
\nplates\tthe  establishment of self-government for  the\tvil-
\nlages.\tThe provisions of the Act in respect of\t payment  of
\ncompensation,  though they do not in any way provide for  an
\nequivalent
\n1030<\/span>
\n money\tof the property taken and in that sense nay  not  be
\nadequate, cannot be called illusory.  This Act is a definite
\nimprovement  on the Bihar Act;\t   at leaves the arrears  of
\nrents  due  in\tthe hands of the proprietors  and  does\t not
\noperate artificially to reduce the net income by any device.
\nIt  also provides that in no case the net income  should  be
\nreduced\t below\tfive  per cent. of the\tgross  income.\t The
\nresult\tis that in every case some amount of  money  becomes
\npayable\t by  the  State by way of  compensation\t     to\t the
\nproprietor and in no case does the compensation work into  a
\nnegative sum or to a mere zero or a minus figure.  In  other
\nrespects the provisions of the Act     in regard to  compen-
\nsation\tfollow the pattern which is common to all  zamindari
\nlegislation,  which is to inflate the amount of\t expenditure
\nand  deflate the actual income.\t The siwai income from\tjal-
\nkar, bankar, etc. and from village forests is calculated  at
\ntwo  times the siwai income recorded in the settlement\tmade
\nin  1923.  This\t Act was passed in 1951.  The  siwai  income
\nrecorded  in  the  year 1923 is appreciably  less  than\t the
\nactual income of the proprietors from these sources in 1951.
\nSimilarly the income from consent money has to be calculated
\nby  taking  the average income for ten years  preceding\t the
\ndate of vesting and not the actual income as in the case  of
\nrent  realized during the previous agricultural\t year.\t The
\nexpenditure  has been inflated by taking in respect  of\t the
\nbig forests the average income tax paid during the period of
\nthirty agricultural years. No agricultural income-tax exist-
\ned during most of this period.\tIt only came into  existence
\nrecently.   The cost of management has been calculated at  a
\nflat rate     of eight to fifteen per cent. There can there-
\nfore be no doubt that the principles laid down for  determi-
\nnation\tof compensation cannot be called equitable and\tthey
\ndo  not\t provide  for payment of just  compensation  to\t the
\nexpropriated proprietor.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t petitioner’s case is that under the formula  stated
\nin the Act, a compensation of 25 lakhs which would be due to
\nhim  on\t the basis of the value of the property\t taken,\t has
\nbeen reduced to a sum of Rs. 65,000 and is
\n1030<\/span>
\npayable\t in thirty unspecified instalments and therefore  it
\nis  purely nominal and illusory.  This figure of Rs.  65,000
\nis arrived at by the following process :-\n<\/p>\n
  (a) Gross income from rents  …  Rs. 55,000\n<\/p>\n
  (b) Siwai income … Rs. 80,050 Actually (according to the
\n\t\t     affidavit the petitioner was
\n\t\t     realizing 4,65,000\t  from this source).\n<\/p>\n
\tTotal\t  …  1,35,000
\n    Deductions\tpermissible under the Act are the  following
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (a) Revenue\t …  45,000\n<\/p>\n
  (b) Income-tax on 30 years’ average 66 600\n<\/p>\n
  (c) Cost of management\t …  21 000\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    ——–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Total\t       ...  1,32,600\n  Net income\t\t\t  ...  2,400\n<\/pre>\n
    Ten times net income would be Rs. 24,000; but as the net
\nincome\tcannot be reduced below five per cent. of the  gross
\nincome which comes to Rs. 6 500, compensation payable is Rs.
\n65,000, while the yearly income of the petitioner was in the
\nneighbourhood  of Rs. 5,65,000 and the market value  of\t his
\nproperty is 25 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
    The first and the main objection to the validity of\t the
\nAct taken by the learned counsel is that the Bill was  never
\npassed\tinto  law. As already indicated, this  objection  is
\nfounded\t on the omission from the proceedings of the  Madhya
\nPradesh Legislative Assembly dated the 5th April, 1950, of a
\nstatement  to the effect that the Bill was put to the  House
\nby  the Speaker and was passed by it. Reference was made  to
\nrules 20, 22, 34 and 115 of the rules regulating the  proce-
\ndure of the legislature framed under the Government of India
\nAct, 1935, in the year 1936, which provides as follows :–
\n “20 (1).  A matter requiring the decision of the  Assem-
\nbly  shall  be\tdecided by means of a question\tput  by\t the
\nSpeaker on a motion made by a member.\n<\/p>\n
1032<\/span><\/p>\n
    22.\t  After\t a motion has been made, the  Speaker  shall
\nread the motion for the consideration of the Assembly.
\n    34\t(1).  Votes may be taken by voices or  division\t and
\nshall  be  taken by division if any member so  desires.\t The
\nSpeaker shall determine the method of taking votes by  divi-
\nsion.\n<\/p>\n
    (2). The result of a division shall be announced by\t the
\nSpeaker and shall not be challenged.\n<\/p>\n
    115 (1). The Secretary shall cause to be prepared a full
\nreport\tof  the proceedings of the Assembly at each  of\t its
\nmeetings and publish it as soon as practicable.
\n    (2)\t One  impression  of this printed  report  shall  be
\nsubmitted to the Speaker for his confirmation and  signature
\nand  when  signed  shall constitute the authentic record  of
\nthe proceedings of the Assembly.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas urged that the authentic report of the  proceed-
\nings  of the Assembly was conclusive on the point, that\t the
\nBill was not put to the Assembly by means of a question\t and
\nwas  not voted upon, and hence it could not be said to\thave
\nbeen  passed by the legislature.  It was said that  even  if
\nthere was no open opposition to the passing of the Bill,  it
\nwas  possible that if it was put to the Assembly,  it  might
\nhave  rejected it. As already pointed out,  the\t proceedings
\nwere  signed by the Speaker on the 1st October, 1950,  while
\nthe certificate that the Bill was passed was recorded by him
\non the original Bill when it was submitted to the  President
\nfor  his assent on the th May, 1950. The certificate of\t the
\nSpeaker is conclusive on the point that the Bill was  passed
\nby  the legislature (Vide Craies’ Statute Law, 4th Edn.,  p.\n<\/p>\n
36).  It seems to me that by an oversight it was not record-
\ned in the proceedings that the motion was put to and  passed
\nby  the House and the Speaker while signing the\t proceedings
\nsix  months  after  the event failed to\t notice\t the  error.
\nThere can be no doubt that the sense of the House on the 5th
\nApril,\t1950, was for passing the Bill and there was no\t one
\npresent who was for rejecting it,
\n1033<\/span>
\nThe  motion  before the House was that the Bill\t be  passed’
\nThe Speaker  could  not possibly have appended a certificate
\non a Bill that it was passed by the House if it had not been
\nso  passed.  There are no grounds whatever for doubting\t the
\ncorrectness of his certificate.\t In my opinion, the  conten-
\ntion raised that the Bill was not passed into law fails\t and
\nmust be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    Next it is contended that articles 31-A and 31-B have no
\napplication to this Bill as it never became law by following
\nthe procedure prescribed in the Constitution and that  those
\narticles have only application to a Bill that had become  an
\nAct.  The  Legislature\tof Madhya Pradesh  consists  of\t the
\nGovernor and the Legislative Assembly. It was said that even
\nif  the Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly, it\t was
\nnot assented to by the Governor but was straightaway sent to
\nthe  President and that without the assent of  the  Governor
\nthe  Bill could not become law despite the fact that it\t was
\nassented  to  by the President and it was pointed  out\tthat
\nsub-clause  (3) of article 31 of the Constitution speaks  of
\n“law” being reserved for the consideration of the  President
\nand  not merely a “Bill”. This argument, in my opinion,\t has
\nnot  much  force  having regard to the terms  and  scope  of
\narticle 200.The Governor under that article could assent  to
\na  Bill\t or could reserve it for the  consideration  of\t the
\nPresident  at his option.  The Governor being  empowered  to
\nreserve the Bill for the consideration of the President\t and
\nthis  having been done, it was for the President  either  to
\nassent to the Bill or to withhold his assent. The  President
\nhaving given his assent, the Bill must be held to have\tbeen
\npassed\tinto  law.  It does not seem to have  been  intended
\nthat  the  Governor should give his assent to the  Bill\t and
\nmake  it  a  full-fledged law and then reserve\tit  for\t the
\nPresident’s consideration so that it may have effect.
\nMr.  Somayya pressed the point that the President could\t not
\nperform\t both  his functions under article 200\tand  article
\n31(4) concerning this Bill at one and the
\n133<\/span>
\n1034<\/span>
\nsame time, that first the procedure laid down in Article 200
\nfor  the passing of the Bill into law should been  followed,
\ni.e.,  the Governor should have either assented to the\tBill
\nor  should  have reserved it for the  consideration  of\t the
\nPresident, and if it was so reserved,, the President  should
\nthen  have given his assent and the Bill would\tthen  become
\nlaw, that after the Bill had become law, the Governor should
\nagain  have reserved this Bill for the consideration of\t the
\nPresident as required by the provisions of article 31 (3) in
\norder  to  make it effective law against the  provisions  of
\narticle\t 31  (2)  and that if the President  then  gave\t his
\nassent, the law so assented to could not be called in  ques-
\ntion in a court of law.\t It was said that only in case where
\nthis double procedure is followed that it could be said that
\nthe  President\thad satisfied himself that the law  did\t not
\ncontravene the provisions of article 31 (2).  In my opinion,
\nthe  argument is fallacious. It would be a meaningless\tfor-
\nmality for the President to give his assent to the same Bill
\ntwice  over. I cannot see why the President  cannot  perform
\nboth the duties entrusted to him by articles 200 and 31\t (3)
\nand (4) at one and the same time.  He is not disabled  under
\nthe Constitution from applying his mind to such a Bill\tonce
\nand for all and to see whether it has to be passed into\t law
\nand  whether it fulfils the requirements of article 31\t(2).
\nThe  President’s assent therefore to the Bill attracts\t the
\napplication  of\t articles 31-A and 31-B to it  and  deprives
\npersons affected by it of the rights guaranteed in Part\t III
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  provisions\t of article 31 (4) support the view  of\t the
\nlearned\t Attorney-General  that what has to be sent  to\t the
\nPresident  is the Bill as passed by the legislature and\t not
\nthe Bill after it has been assented to by the Governor.\t The
\narticle reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“If  any Bill pending at the commencement of this  Constitu-
\ntion  in the Legislature of a State has, after it  has\tbeen
\npassed by such Legislature, been reserved for the considera-
\ntion  of the President. and has received his  assent,  then,
\nnotwithstanding anything in this
\n1035<\/span>
\nConstitution, the law so assented to shall not be called  in
\nquestion in any court on the ground that it contravenes\t the
\nprovisions of clause (2).”\n<\/p>\n
    In this context the- word “Legislature” means the  House
\nor  Houses of Legislature and does not include the  Governor
\nwithin its ambit. This word has not the same meaning in\t all
\nthe  articles.\t In some articles it means the\tGovernor  as
\nwell  as  the Houses of Legislature, while in  a  number  of
\nother articles it only means the House or Houses of Legisla-
\nture.\tArticle 31(4) means that if any\t Bill\tcontravening
\nthe  provisions of clause (2)of article 31 is passed by\t the
\nHouse  or  Houses  of Legislature but is  reserved  for\t the
\nconsideration of the President and receives his assent, then
\nit shall become law, not open to any objection on the ground
\nof such contravention.\n<\/p>\n
    Next it was contended that the obligation to pay compen-
\nsation\twas implicit in the legislative power  contained  in
\nentry 36 of List II and that the Act was unconstitutional as
\nit  had provided for acquisition of zamindaris without\tpay-
\nment  of compensation, the provisions relating to  it  being
\nillusory.  This contention fails for the reasons given in my
\njudgment  in  the Bihar case.\tMoreover,  the\tcompensation
\nprovided for in the impugned Act cannot be dubbed as illuso-
\nry.  All that can be said is that it is\t grossly  inadequate
\nand  it is not the equivalent of the value of  the  property
\nacquired,  but this issue is not justiciable in view of\t the
\nprovisions of article 31 (4).  This Bill was pending at\t the
\ncommencement  of the Constitution, it was reserved  for\t the
\nconsideration  of the President and the President  gave\t his
\nassent to it.  The conditions for the application of article
\n31(4) thus stand fulfilled. Besides  the obstacle of article
\n31(4), two further hurdles, viz., of articles 31-A and\t31-B
\nintroduced  by the amendments to the Constitution, stand  in
\nthe way of the petitioner and bar an enquiry into the  ques-
\ntion of the quantum of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t contention that there is no public  purpose  behind
\nthe impugned Act has also to be repelled on the
\n1036<\/span>
\nsame reasoning as given by me in the Bihar case. The purpose
\nbehind the Act is to establish direct contact between  till-
\ners  of\t the soil and the Government and  to  eliminate\t the
\nintermediaries, as in the view of the Government this is for
\nthe  welfare  of  the society as a whole.  It  is  also\t the
\npurpose of the Act to confer malik maqbuza  status on  occu-
\npancy tenants and improve their present position and to vest
\nmanagement of village affairs and cultivation in a democrat-
\nic village body.  It is too late in the day to contend\tthat
\nreform in this direction is not for general public benefit.
\n    The next argument of Mr. Somayya that the Act is a fraud
\non the Constitution in that in legislating under entry 42 of
\nList III, it has legislated for non-payment of\tcompensation
\nhas also to be repelled, for the reasons given in the  Bihar
\ncase.\tUnder the provisions of this  Act  compensation\t can
\nin no case work out into a mere nothing.  On the other hand,
\nin every case some amount of compensation is payable and  in
\nthe  majority\tof  cases it is also  not   inadequate.\t Mr.
\nSomayya contended that payment of Rs. 65,000 as compensation
\nto his client for property worth twenty-five lakhs of rupees
\nwas  purely illusory. The assessment of value by  the  peti-
\ntioner\tcannot be taken at its full value. It cannot at\t any
\nrate be held that legislation which provides for the payment
\nof  a  sum of Rs. 65,000 provides for no  compensation.\t The
\namount of instalments, Hpayment is to be in instalments,  is
\nbound to be fixed by the rules made under the statute and in
\ncase  the rules are so made that they amount to an abuse  of
\nthe exercise of that power, they can always be challenged on
\nthat ground.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t argument that the Act is bad inasmuch as  it  dele-
\ngates essential legislative power to the executive is  nega-
\ntived for the reasons given in the Bihar case.
\n    A point was raised that the constitutional amendments in
\narticles  31-A\tand 31-B could not affect  the\tpetitioner’s
\nguaranteed rights contained in Part III of the\tConstitution
\nin  so far as the eighty malguzari villages were  concerned,
\nbecause those mahals did not
\n  1037<\/span>
\nfall  within  the ambit of the word “estate” as\t defined  in
\narticle\t 31-A.\tIn sub-clause (2) (a) the definition  is  in
\nthese terms :-\n<\/p>\n
    “The expression ‘estate’ shall, in relation to any local
\narea, have the same meaning as that expression or its  local
\nequivalent has in the existing law relating to land  tenures
\nin  force  in that area, and shall also include\t any  jagir,
\ninam or muafi or other similar grant.”\n<\/p>\n
    Section 2 (3) of Act II of 1917, C.P. Land Revenue\tAct,
\ndefines the expression “estate” thus :”an estate as declared
\nby  the\t State\tGovernment.”  The  learned  Advocate-General
\nconceded  that\tthese villages are not within the  ambit  of
\nthis  definition but he contended that they are\t within\t the
\nscope  of the definition of the expression given in  article
\n31-A,  as mahals in Central Provinces are local\t equivalents
\nof  the expression “estate”, though not so declared  by\t the
\nAct.  There is nothing on the record to support this conten-
\ntion.  The contention that those eighty mahals are  not\t “an
\nestate” and are thus excluded from the reach of article 31-A
\ndoes not, however, very much advance the petitioner’s  case,
\nbecause the hurdles created in his way by articles 31-B\t and
\n31(4)  stand in spite of the circumstance that article\t31-A
\nhas n0 application.  It was contended that article 31-B\t was
\nmerely\tillustrative of the rule stated in article 31-A\t and
\nif article 31-A had no application, that article also should
\nbe  left  out of consideration. Reference was  made  to\t the
\ndecision  of  the Privy Council in King Emperor\t v.  Sibnath
\nBanerjee(1) on the construction of sub-sections (1) and\t (2)
\nof  section  2\tof the Defence of India\t Act.  The  material
\nportion of section 2 considered in that ease runs thus :–\n<\/p>\n
    “(1). The Central Government may, by notification in the
\nofficial  gazette,  make such rules as appear to it  to’  be
\nnecessary  or expedient for securing the defence of  British
\nIndia, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or
\nthe  efficient prosecution of war, or for  maintaining\tsup-
\nplies and services essential to the life of the community.
\n(1) (T945) L.R. 72 J.A. 241; [1945] F.C.R. 195.\n<\/p>\n
1038<\/span><\/p>\n
    (2). Without  prejudice to the generality of the  powers
\nconferred by sub-section (1), the rules may provide for,  or
\nmay empower any authority to make orders providing for,\t all
\nor any of the following matters, namely,……………..”.
\n    Their  Lordships made the following\t observations  about
\nthe meaning to be given to the language of subsection (2) :-\n<\/p>\n
    “the function of sub-section (2) is merely an  illustra-
\ntive one; the rule-making power is conferred by\t sub-section
\n(1),  and ‘the rules’ which are referred to in\tthe  opening
\nsentence  of sub-section (2)are the rules which are  author-
\nized by, and made under, sub-section (1); the provisions  of
\nsub-section (2) are not restrictive of sub-section (1),\t as,
\nindeed, is expressly stated by the words’ without  prejudice
\nto  the\t generality of the powers conferred  by\t sub-section
\n(1)’.”\n<\/p>\n
     Article 31-B is in these terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t “Without prejudice to the generality of the  provi-
\nsions contained in article 31-A, none of the Acts and  Regu-
\nlations\t specified  in\tthe Ninth Schedule nor\tany  of\t the
\nprovisions  thereof shall be deemed to be  void\t ………on
\nthe ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is  incon-
\nsistent\t with, or takes away or abridges any of\t the  rights
\nconferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstand-
\ning any judgment, decree or order of  the court or  tribunal
\nto  the\t contrary,  each of the said  Acts  and\t Regulations
\nshall, subject to the power of any competent Legislature  to
\nrepeal or amend it, continue in force.”\n<\/p>\n
    On\tthe basis of the similarity of the language  in\t the
\nopening part of article 31-B with that of sub-section (2) of
\nsection 2 of the Defence of India Act, “without prejudice to
\nthe generality of the provisions contained in article 31-A”,
\nit  was urged that article 31-B was merely  illustrative  of
\narticle\t 31-A and as the latter was limited in its  applica-
\ntion to estates as defined therein, article 31-B was also so
\nlimited.  In my opinion, the observations in Sibnath  Baner-
\njee’s case(1)
\n(1) (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 24z; [1945] F.C.R. x95.\n<\/p>\n
1039<\/span><\/p>\n
far  from  supporting the contention raised,  negatives\t it.
\nArticle 31-B specifically validates certain Acts v mentioned
\nin  the schedule despite the provisions of article 31-A\t and
\nis  not illustrative of article 31-A but stands\t independent
\nof  it. The impugned Act in this situation qua the  acquisi-
\ntion  of the eighty malguzari villages cannot be  questioned
\non the ground that it contravenes the provisions of  article
\n31 (2) of the Constitution or any of the other provisions of
\nPart III. The applicability of article 31 (4) is not limited
\nto estates and its provisions save the law in its entirety.
\n This  petition is accordingly dismissed but in the  cir-
\ncumstances I make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t Petition No. 317 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Bindra,  who appeared for  the\t petitioner,  placed
\nreliance on  the observations of  Holmes C.J.  in Communica-
\ntions Assns. v. Douds(1), viz., “that the provisions of\t the
\nConstitution  are  not mathematical  formulas  having  their
\nessence in their form; they are organic living\tinstitutions
\ntransplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital,
\nnot  formal; it is to be gathered not simply by\t taking\t the
\nwords and a dictionary, but by considering their origin\t and
\nthe line of their growth”, and contended that if the Consti-
\ntution of India was construed in the light of these observa-
\ntions, then despite the express provisions of article 31 (2)
\nit would be found that there is something pervading it which
\nmakes  the obligation to pay real compensation\ta  necessary
\nincident of the compulsory acquisition of property.  It\t was
\nsaid  that the right to compensation is implied in entry  36
\nof  List II of the Seventh Schedule and that  article  31(2)
\ndoes  not  confer  the right but merely\t protects  it.\t Mr.
\nBindra merely tried to annotate the arguments of Mr. Das but
\nwith  no  better result.  The dictum of Holmes C.J.  has  no
\napplication to the construction of a Constitution which\t has
\nin express terms made the payment of compensation obligatory
\nfor  compulsory\t acquisition  of property,  which  again  in
\nexpress terms by an amendment of it,
\n(1) 319 U.S. 38z, 384.\n<\/p>\n
1040<\/span><\/p>\n
has  deprived persons affected by the impugned Act  of\tthis
\nright.\n<\/p>\n
    One further point taken by Mr. Bindra was that  “nation-
\nalization”  of\tland is a separate head of  legislation\t and
\nthat “acquisition in general” does not fall within the scope
\nof entry 36 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. This  propo-
\nsition was sought to be supported by reference to a  passage
\nfrom  Stephen’s\t Commentaries on the Laws of  England,\tVol.
\nIII,  p.  S41. The passage, however, read in  its  entirety,
\nnegatives  the\tcontention, It may be mentioned\t that  under
\npowers of compulsory acquisition a number of properties have
\nbeen nationalized in England and other countries.
\n    Lastly,  it was urged that the legislation\tin  question
\nwas  not enacted bona fide inasmuch as in 1946 the  legisla-
\nture having passed a resolution to end zamindaries, proceed-
\ned to enact laws with the purpose-of defeating the constitu-
\ntional\tguarantees  regarding  payment\tof  compensation  by
\nvarious\t devices.   As a first step in\tthis  direction\t the
\nrevenue was enhanced in order to reduce the gross income  of
\nthe zamindars, then other Acts mentioned in the earlier part
\nof the main judgment were enacted with the same end in view.
\nIn my opinion, this argument is void of force. It was within
\nthe competence of the Government in exercise of its  govern-
\nmental power to enhance land revenue, to withdraw  exemption
\nof  land  revenue, wherever those had been granted,  and  to
\nenact  other  laws  of a similar  character.   There  is  no
\nevidence  whatsoever that all these enactments were  enacted
\nwith  a\t fraudulent design of defeating\t the  provisions  of
\npayment\t of compensation contained in the Constitution.\t The
\nConstitution  had not even come into force by the time\tthat
\nmost of these statutes were enacted.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t petition is therefore dismissed.  I, however,\tmake
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t Petition No. 268 of 1951
\n    This  petition is concluded by my decision\tin  Petition
\nNo. 166 Of 1951 except as regards one matter,
\n1041<\/span>
\nThe  properties\t belonging to the  petitioner  and  acquired
\nunder the statute were originally situate in an Indian State
\nwhich  became subsequently merged with Madhya  Pradesh.\t  It
\nwas  contended that by the terms of the covenant  of  merger
\nthose  properties were declared as the petitioner’s  private
\nproperties and were protected from  State legislation by the
\nguarantee given in article 362 of the Constitution and hence
\nthe impugned Act was bad as it contravened the provisions of
\nthis article.  Article 362 is in these terms :–\n<\/p>\n
    “In\t the exercise of the power of Parliament or  of\t the
\nlegislature  of a State to make laws or in the\texercise  of
\nthe  executive power of the Union or of a State, due  regard
\nshall  be had to the guarantee or assurance given under\t any
\nsuch  covenant or agreement as is referred to in clause\t (1)
\nof  article 291 with respect to the personal rights,  privi-
\nleges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State.”\n<\/p>\n
    Article   333 takes away the jurisdiction of the  courts
\nregarding  disputes  arising out  of  treaties,\t agreements,
\ncovenants, engagements, sanads etc.
\n    It is true that by the covenant of merger the properties
\nof  the petitioner became his private properties as  distin-
\nguished from properties of the State but in respect of\tthem
\nhe is in no better position than any other owner  possessing
\nprivate property.  Article 362 does not prohibit the  acqui-
\nsition\tof properties declared as private properties by\t the
\ncovenant  of merger and does not guarantee  their  perpetual
\nexistence.  The\t guarantee contained in the  article  is  of
\na limited extent only.\tIt assures that the Rulers’  proper-
\nties  declared\tas  their private  properties  will  not  be
\nclaimed\t as State properties.  The guarantee has no  greater
\nscope than this.  That guarantee has been fully respected by
\nthe impugned statute, as it treats those properties as their
\nprivate properties and seeks to acquire them on that assump-
\ntion.  Moreover, it seems to me that in view of the  compre-
\nhensive language of article 363 this issue is not  justicia-
\nble
\n134<\/span>
\n1042<\/span>
\nThis petition is accordingly dismissed but there will be  no
\norder of costs.\n<\/p>\n
    Petitions Nos. 228,230. 237, 245,246,257,280, 281,\t282,
\n283, 284, 285,287, 288 and 289 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tall these fifteen petitions, Mr. Swami appeared\t for
\nthe  petitioners.   Seven  of these are\t by  zamindars\tfrom
\nMadhya Pradesh who are owners of estates. The petitioner  in
\nPetition  No.  246 also owns   certain\tmalguzari  villages.
\nPetitioner  in\tPetition No. 237 is a malguzar\tof  eighteen
\nvillages  but owns no estate. Petitions Nos. 280 to 285\t and
\n257  relate to merged territories.  The petitioner in  Peti-
\ntion No. 282 was ruler of a State (Jashpur) and the petition
\nconcerns  his private properties. Petitioners  in  Petitions
\nNos.  283, 284 and 257 are Ilakadars and in  Petitions\tNos.
\n280  and 285 they are mafidars.\t Petitioner in Petition\t No.
\n281  is a Thikedar. i.e., revenue farmer of three  villages.
\nMr.  Swami reiterated the contention raised by\tMr.  Somayya
\nthat  the Act was not duly passed by the  legislature.\t For
\nthe  reasons  given in Petition No. 166 of 1951,  I  see  no
\nforce  in  this contention. Mr. Swami  also  reiterated\t Mr.
\nBindra’s contention that the legislation was not bona  fide.
\nFor  the reasons given in Petition No. a17, this  contention
\nis’  not  accepted. Mr. Swami vehemently  argued  that\t the
\nGovernment  has by this Act become a  super-zarnindar,\tthat
\nthere is no public purpose behind the Act, that there is  no
\nchange\tin  the existing order of things, that the  Act\t has
\nachieved  nothing new, the tenants remain as they were,\t the
\nmalikan cabza were also already in existence, that  acquisi-
\ntion of that status by occupancy tenants was possible  under
\nexisting statutes and that they had also the power of trans-
\nfer of their holdings.\tIn my opinion, the argument is based
\non  a fallacy. As already stated, the purpose of the Act  is
\nto  bring  about reforms in the land tenure  system  of\t the
\nState by establishing direct contact between the tillers  of
\nthe soil and the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     These  petitions are accordingly dismissed, I  make  no
\norder of costs in them.\n<\/p>\n
 1043<\/span><\/p>\n
Petition No. 318 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. Mukherji who appeared in this petition merely adopt-
\ned the arguments taken in other petitions.  For the  reasons
\ngiven therein this petition is also dismissed, but I make no
\norder as to costs in it.\n<\/p>\n
Petition No. 487 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Jog appeared in this petition and raised  the\tsame
\npoints as in other petitions.  This petition also fails\t and
\nis dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.
\nMUKHERJEA J.–I agree with my Lord the Chief
\nJustice that these petitions should be dismissed.
\n    DAS\t J.–The  Madhya Pradesh  Abolition  of\t Proprietary
\nRights\t(Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Act  I
\nof  1951)having on January 22, 1951, received the assent  of
\nthe  President of India a Notification was published in\t the
\nMadhya Pradesh Gazette of January 27, 1951, fixing March 31,
\n1951,  as the date of vesting of all proprietary  rights  in
\nthe State under section 3 of the Act.  A number of  applica-
\ntions were made under article 226 of the Constitution to the
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t High  Court by or on  behalf  of  different
\npersons\t variously  described as Zamindars or  Malguzars  or
\nProprietors of “alienated villages” praying for the issue of
\nappropriate  writs against the State of Madhya Pradesh\tpro-
\nhibiting them from proceeding under the Act the validity  of
\nwhich  was  challenged on a variety of\tgrounds.  Eleven  of
\nthese  applications came up for hearing before a Full  Bench
\nof  the\t High Court (B.P. Sinha C.J.  and  Mangalmurthi\t and
\nMudholkar JJ.) and were, on 9th April, 1951, dismissed.\t The
\nHigh  Court certified under article 132 (1) that  the  cases
\ninvolved a substantial question of law as to the interpreta-
\ntion of the Constitution. No appeal, however, appearsto have
\nbeen actually flied presumably because the present  applica-
\ntions under article 32 had already been flied in this Court.
\n    It\tmay be mentioned here that the States of  Bihar\t and
\nUttar Pradesh also passed legislation for the
\n1044<\/span>
\nabolition of zamindaries in their respective States and\t the
\nvalidity  of  those legislations was also contested  by\t the
\nproprietors  affected  thereby.\t  While the  High  Court  of
\nAllahabad upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Act,\t the
\nHigh  Court of Patna held the Bihar Land Reforms Act,  1950,
\nto  be unconstitutional only on the ground that it  offended
\nthe  fundamental right of equal protection of the laws\tgua-
\nranteed\t by article 14 of the Constitution.  In the  circum-
\nstances,  the Constituent Assembly passed the\tConstitution
\n(First\tAmendment) Act, 1951, by sections 4 and 5  of  which
\ntwo new articles, namely, article 31-A and article 31-B were
\ninserted  into the Constitution.  A new schedule called\t the
\nNinth  Schedule specifying 13 several Acts  and\t Regulations
\nincluding the Madhya Pradesh Act, I of 1951, was also  added
\nto  ‘the Constitution.\tThe legal validity of the  Constitu-
\ntion (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which was challenged, has,
\nhowever, been upheld by this Court and all Courts must\tgive
\neffect\tto  the two new articles which are  now\t substantive
\nparts of our Constitution.  Article 31-A relates back to the
\ndate of the Constitution and article 31-B to the  respective
\ndates  of  the Acts and Regulations specified in  the  Ninth
\nSchedule.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t present bunch of petitions has been flied  in\tthis
\nCourt  under article 32 of the Constitution challenging\t the
\nvalidity of the Madhya Pradesh Act and praying for appropri-
\nate  writs, directions and orders restraining the  State  of
\nMadhya Pradesh from acting under that Act and disturbing the
\npetitioner’s  title to, and possession of, their  respective
\nestates, villages or properties.  Learned counsel  appearing
\nfor the different petitioners accept the position that as  a
\nresult of the Constitutional amendments the impugned Act has
\nbeen  removed from the operation of the provisions  of\tPart
\nIII of the Constitution and that consequently the attack  on
\nthe Act will have to be founded on some other provisions  of
\nthe Constitution. Mr. B. Somayya appearing for the petition-
\ner in Petition No. 166 of 1951 (Visheshwar Rao v. The  Slate
\nof Madhya Pradesh)
\n1045<\/span>
\nchallenged the validity of the Act on the following  grounds
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
    (a)\t that the Bill itself was not passed by\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh Legislature;\n<\/p>\n
    (b)\t that the procedure laid down in article 31 (3)\t had
\nnot been complied with;\n<\/p>\n
    (c)\t that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature was not  compe-
\ntent to enact the said Act, inasmuch as-\n<\/p>\n
    (i)\t the acquisition sought to be made under the Act  is
\nnot for a public purpose, and\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)  there is no provision for payment of\tcompensation
\nin the legal sense;\n<\/p>\n
    (d)\t that the Act constitutes a fraud on  the  Constitu-
\ntion;\n<\/p>\n
    (e)\t that the Act is unenforceable in that\tit  provides
\nfor  payment  of compensation by instalments  but  does\t not
\nspecify the amount t of the instalments;\n<\/p>\n
    (f)\t that  the Act has delegated  essential\t legislative
\nfunctions to the executive Government;\n<\/p>\n
    (g) that the Act in so far as it purports to acquire the
\nMalguzari  villages  or Mahals is not protected\t by  article
\n31-A.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned  counsel  for other petitioners adopted  and  in
\nsome measure reinforced the  arguments of Mr. B. Somayya.\n<\/p>\n
     Re\t (a):  In dealing with this ground of  objection  it
\nwill  be  helpful  to note the course which  the  Bill\ttook
\nbefore it was put on the Statute Book.\tThere is no  dispute
\nas  to the correctness of the dates given to us\t by  counsel
\nfort  he petitioners. The Bill was introduced in the  Madhya
\nPradesh Assembly on 11th October, 1949.\t It was referred  to
\na  Select Committee on 15th October, 1949.  The Select\tCom-
\nmittee\tmade its Report on 9th March, 1950, which  was\tpre-
\nsented\tto the Assembly on 29th March, 1950.   The  Assembly
\nconsidered the Bill in the light of the Report between\tthat
\ndate and 5th April, 1950, during which period the amendments
\nproposed by the Select Committee were moved and disposed of.
\nIt appears from the Official
\n1046<\/span>
\nProceedings of the  Madhya  Pradesh  Legislative Assembly of
\n5th April, 1950. that after the last amendment had been\t put
\nto  the House and accepted, the Hon’ble Minister for  Educa-
\ntion (Sri P.S. Deshmukh) moved that the Bill be passed\tinto
\nlaw  and  delivered a short speech inviting the\t members  to
\nfinally pass the Bill  The Speaker then read out the motion.
\nThen  followed\tspeeches by 11 speakers\t congratulating\t the
\nGovernment and so, me of the members who took an active part
\nin  carrying through this important measure of\tland  reform
\nand  relief to the tillers of the soil. Nobody\tput  forward
\nany  reasoned amendment and the trend of the speeches  shows
\nthat the House accepted the Bill.  From the Official  Report
\nof  proceedings it does not, however, appear that after\t the
\nspeeches the Speaker formally put the motion to the vote  or
\ndeclared it carried. It only shows that the House passed  on
\nto discuss another  Bill,  namely, the Madhya Pradesh  State
\nAid  to Industries (Amendment) Bill, 1950.  The text of\t the
\nBill  as  it emerged through the House was printed  on\t29th
\nApril,\t1950, and the Speaker signed a copy of\tthe  Printed
\nBill on 5th May, 1950, and certified that it had been passed
\nby  the House and forwarded it to the Governor.\t By  an\t en-
\ndorsement  on  that copy of the Printed\t Bill  the  Governor
\nreserved  the Bill for the assent of the President  and\t the
\nPresident.,  on 22nd January, 1951, signified his assent  by
\nendorsing  his\tsignature at the foot of that  copy  of\t the
\nPrinted Bill.  The learned Advocate-General has produced the
\noriginal printed Act signed by the Speaker, the Governor and
\nthe  President.\t  It  appears that the\tOfficial  Report  of
\nProceedings of the Legislative Assembly of 5th April,  1950,
\nwas  printed in June, 1950, and were on 1st  October,  1950,
\nsigned\tby the Speaker along with the ,proceedings  of\tmany
\nother  meetings of the Assembly. It is to be noted that\t the
\nSpeaker simply signed the printed proceedings without  stat-
\ning  one way or the other whether the Bill in  question\t was
\npassed or not.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t objection  formulated by learned  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioners is founded on the Rules of Procedure
\n1047<\/span>
\nframed by the Assembly under section 84 of the Government of
\nIndia  Act,  1935, which were continued in force  until\t new
\nrules  were  framed under article 208 of  the  Constitution.
\nThat old rule 22 which required that after a motion was made
\nthe Speaker should read the motion for the consideration  of
\nthe  Assembly has been complied with is not disputed.\tWhat
\nis contended is that the provisions of old rule 20 (1)\thave
\nnot been followed.  That rule was in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
    “A\t matter\t requiring  the\t decision  of  the  Assembly
\nshall  be decided by means of a question put by the  Speaker
\non a motion made by a member.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis urged that the question that the Bill  be  passed
\ninto law was not put to the Assembly under rule 20 and if it
\nwas  at all put the result of the voting, whether by  voices
\nor division, was never announced by the Speaker as  required
\nby  old\t rule 34.  There being a presumption  of  regularity
\nattached to all official business the onus is undoubtedly on
\nthe  petitioners to allege and\tprove  that  the   procedure
\nprescribed  by\tthe  rules was not followed.   There  is  no
\nevidence  on  affidavit by anybody who was  present  at\t the
\nmeeting of the Assembly held on 5th April, 1950, as to\twhat
\nhad  actually  happened on that date. The  petitioners\trely
\nonly on the absence in the Official Report of proceedings of
\nany  mention of the question being put to or carried by\t the
\nAssembly.   The Official Proceedings were prepared and\tcon-
\nfirmed in terms of old rule 115 which was as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
    “(1)  The  Secretary shall cause to be prepared  a\tfull
\nreport\tof  the proceedings of the Assembly at each  of\t its
\nmeetings and publish it as soon as practicable.
\n    (2)\t One  impression  of this printed  report  shall  be
\nsubmitted to the Speaker for his confirmation’ and signature
\nand when signed shall constitute the authentic record of the
\nproceedings of the Assembly.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t argument is that the initial onus that was  on\t the
\npetitioners has been quite adequately and
\n1048<\/span>
\neffectively  discharged by the authentic record of the\tpro-
\nceedings  of the Assembly and consequently ‘it must be\theld
\nthat  the Bill did not\tactually become law at all. I am not
\nprepared to accept this contention as sound. I have  already
\npointed out that the original printed Act produced before us
\nclearly\t shows that on 5th May, 1950, the Speaker  certified
\nthat   the  Bill  had been passed by the  Assembly.   It  is
\npointed out that old rule b7 under which the Speaker  certi-
\nfied that the Bill had been passed did not give any finality
\nor conclusiveness to the Speaker’s certificate that the Bill
\nhad been passed, such as is provided for in old rules 34 (2)
\nor 39 (3) and, therefore, the certification under old rule87
\ncannot\taffect the authenticity of the record confirmed\t and
\nsigned\tby  the Speaker under old rule 115.  This  does\t not
\nappear\tto me to be a correct approach to the  problem.\t The
\nquestion  before us is whether as a matter of fact the\tBill
\nhad been duly passed according to the rules. The  certifica-
\ntion of the Speaker was within a month from 5th April. 1950,
\nwhile the confirmation of the proceedings took place on\t 1st
\nOctober, 1950.\tThere can be no doubt that the memory of the
\nSpeaker\t was  fresher on 5th May, 1950, than it was  on\t 1st
\nOctober, 1950, when he signed a bunch of reports of proceed-
\nings Therefore, as a statement of a fact more reliance\tmust
\nbe  placed  on\tthe certification of the Bill  than  on\t the
\nconfirmation of the proceedings and it will not be unreason-
\nable  to hold that the omission of any mention of the  ques-
\ntion  having  been put wand carried by the Assembly  was  an
\naccidental slip or omission. Further, the speeches delivered
\nby  the eleven speakers clearly indicate that at that  stage
\nthere was no opposition to the Bill.  Therefore, putting the
\nquestion  at the end of the third reading of the Bill  would
\nhave  been at best a mere formality.  (See May’s  Parliamen-
\ntary  Practice,\t  14th Edn., p. 544).  It is, after  all,  a
\nmatter for the Speaker to declare the result. The  authenti-
\ncation\tby the Speaker on the printed Act that the Bill\t was
\npassed involves such a declaration having been duly made. In
\nBritish Parliamentary
\n   1049<\/span>
\npractice  the Speaker’s authentication is taken\t as  conclu-
\nsive.  (See  Crates’ on Statute Law, 4th Ed.,  p.  36).\t The
\npetitioners,  as I have said, strongly rely on the  Official
\nReport of the Proceedings. It should, in this connection  be
\nborne in mind that article 208 of the Constitution continued
\nthe  old rules until new rules were framed. It appears\tthat
\nnew  rules were framed and actually came into force  on\t 8th
\nSeptember,  1950. New rule 148 does not\t reproduce  sub-rule
\n(2) of old rule 115. After the new rules came into force  it
\nwas  no longer the duty of the Speaker to confirm  the\tpro-
\nceedings  at all. Therefore, the purported  confirmation  of
\nthe proceedings by the Speaker on 1st October, 1950,  cannot
\nbe  given  any legal validity and the  argument\t founded  on
\nauthentication under defunct rule 115 (2) must lose all\t its
\nforce.\tFinally, the irregularity of procedure,. if any,  is
\nexpressly cured by article 212. , I am not impressed by\t the
\nargument  founded on the fine distinction sought to be\tmade
\nbetween an irregularity of procedure and an omission to take
\na particular step in the procedure.  Such an omission in  my
\nopinion, is nothing more than an irregularity of  procedure.
\nIn my judgment this ground of attack on the validity of\t the
\nAct is not well-founded and must be rejected.
\nRe  (b):  Article 31 (3) on which this ground of  attack
\nis based runs as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
    “(3). No such law as is referred ‘to in clause (2)\tmade
\nby the Legislature of a State shall have effect unless\tsuch
\nlaw,  having  been  reserved for the  consideration  of\t the
\nPresident, has received his assent.”\n<\/p>\n
    Great stress is laid on the words “law” and “legislature
\nof a State”.  It is said that this clause postulates a “law”
\nmade  by  the “Legislature of a State”.\t Reference  is\tthen
\nmade  to  article 168 which provides that  for\tevery  State
\nthere  shall  be a Legislature which shall consist   of\t the
\nGovernor and, so far as Madhya Pradesh is concerned, of\t one
\nHouse, i.e., the Legislative Assembly. The argument is\tthat
\narticle 31(3) requires that a “law” must be reserved for the
\nconsideration  of  the President.  If a Bill passed  by\t the
\nAssembly is\t   135
\n1050<\/span>
\nreserved by the Governor for the consideration of the Presi-
\ndent  without  giving his own assent thereto, it  cannot  be
\nsaid  that a “law” is reserved for the consideration of\t the
\nPresident, for up to that stage the Bill remains a Bill\t and
\nhas  not been passed into law. Therefore, it is urged,\tthat
\nafter  a Bill is passed by the State Assembly, the  Governor
\nmust  assent to it so that the Bill becomes a law  and\tthen
\nthat law to have effect, must be reserved for the considera-
\ntion  of the President.\t This, admittedly, not\thaving\tbeen
\ndone,  the  provisions of article 31 (3) cannot be  said  to
\nhave  been complied with and, therefore the Act cannot\thave
\nany  effect  at\t all.  I am unable to accept  this  line  of
\nreasoning.  For one thing, it assumes that a Bill passed  by
\nthe  State Assembly can become a law only by the  assent  of
\nthe  Governor. That is not so. The procedure to be  followed
\nafter a Bill is passed by the\tState Assembly is laid\tdown
\nin article 200. Under that article, the Governor can do\t one
\nof  three things, namely he may declare that he\t assents  to
\nit, in which case the Bill becomes a law, or he may  declare
\nthat  he withholds assent therefrom, in which case the\tBill
\nfalls through unless the procedure indicated in the  proviso
\nis followed, or he may declare that he reserves the Bill for
\nthe  consideration  of\tthe President, in  which   case\t the
\nPresident  will adopt the procedure laid down\t in  article\n<\/p>\n
201.  Under that article the President shall  declare either
\nthat  he  assents to the Bill in which case  the  Bill\twill
\nbecome\tlaw or that he withholds assent therefrom, in  which
\ncase  the Bill falls through unless the procedure  indicated
\nin  the\t proviso is followed. Thus it is clear that  a\tBill
\npassed by a State Assembly may become a law if the  Governor
\ngives  his assent to it or if, having been reserved  by\t the
\nGovernor  for  the  consideration of the  President,  it  is
\nassented  to by the President.\tIn the latter event  happen-
\ning.  the  argument of learned counsel for  the\t petitioners
\nwill require that what has become a law by the assent of the
\nPresident  will, in order to be effective, have to be  again
\nreserved  for the consideration of the President, a  curious
\nconclusion I should be 1oath to reach unless I
\n1051<\/span>
\nam  compelled to do so. Article 200 does not  contemplate  a
\nsecond\treservation by the Governor. The plain\t meaning  of
\nthe language of article 31 (3) does not lead me to the\tcon-
\nclusion.  The whole argument is built on the word ‘ ‘law”. I
\ndo  not\t think that what is referred to as  law\t in  article
\n31(a)  is necessarily what had already become a\t law  before
\nreceiving  the\tassent of the President. If  that  were\t the
\nmeaning, the clause would have said “unless such law, having
\nbeen  reserved lot the consideration of the  President,\t re-
\nceives\this  assent”. The words “has  received\this  assent”
\nclearly\t imply\tand point to an accomplished  fact  and\t the
\nclause read as a whole does not grammatically exclude a\t law
\nthat  eventually  became a law by having  had  received\t the
\nassent of the President.  The question whether the  require-
\nments  of article 31 (3) have been complied with will  arise
\nonly when the State purports to acquire the property of\t any
\nperson under a law and that person denies that the  asserted
\nlaw  has any effect.  It is at that point of time  that\t the
\nCourt  has to ask itself–‘ ‘is it a law which, having\tbeen
\nreserved  for  the consideration of the President,  has\t re-
\nceived\this assent”.  I think it is in this sense  that\t the
\nword “law” has been used. In other words, the word “law” has
\nbeen used to mean what at the time of dispute purports to be
\nor is asserted to be a law.  The language of article 31\t (4)
\nalso  supports this interpretation.  In my judgment  article
\n31  (3), on its true interpretation, does not  require\tthat
\nthe  Governor  must first assent to the Bill passed  by\t the
\nAssembly  so  as to convert it into a law and  then  reserve
\nthat  law  for the consideration of the\t President.  I\thave
\nalready pointed out that article 200 does not contemplate  a
\nsecond reservation which will be necessary if initially\t the
\nGovernor  instead of himself assenting to the Bill  had\t re-
\nserved\tit  for the consideration of the President.   In  my
\nopinion there is no substance in the second objection  which
\nmust, therefore, be overruled.\n<\/p>\n
 Re  (c), (d),(e) and (f):  Similar heads  of  objections
\nwere formulated and argued at considerable length by Mr.  P.
\nR. Das in the Bihar appeals and learned counsel
\n1052<\/span>
\nappearing  for\tthe petitioners in the\tpresent\t proceedings
\nhave  adopted  the same. Shortly put, the argument  is\tthat
\nalthough  the  impugned Act cannot, in view of\tarticles  31
\n(4), 31-A and 31-B be called in question on the ground\tthat
\nit takes away or abridges or is inconsistent with the funda-
\nmental rights, it can, nevertheless, be challenged on  other
\ngrounds. Thus it is open to the petitioners to show that the
\nLegislature had no power to enact the law or that it offends
\nagainst any other provision of the Constitution.  Mr. N.  S.
\nBindra\tand Mr. Swami have sought to reinforce\tthose  argu-
\nments  by citing certain further passages from certain\ttext
\nbooks and reported decisions. The provisions of the impugned
\nAct  have been analysed and summarised by Mahajan J. in\t the
\njudgment  just delivered by him and it is not necessary\t for
\nme  to recapitulate the same. Nor is it necessary for me  to
\nformulate in detail the various heads of arguments   founded
\nprincipally  on what is said to be the legislative  incompe-
\ntence  of  the Madhya Pradesh Legislature to enact  the\t im-
\npugned Act in view of the language of legislative topics set
\nforth in entry 36 in List II and entry 42 in List III or  on
\nthe  ground that the Act is a fraud on the  Constitution  or
\nthat it delegates  essential legislative power to the execu-
\ntive Government which is not permissible.  Suffice it to say
\nthat for reasons stated in my judgment in the Bihar  appeals
\nI  repel these heads of objections. If anything, the  exist-
\nence  of  a public purpose is more apparent  in\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t Act than in the Bihar Land Reforms  Act.   Further,
\nthe compensation provided in the Madhya Pradesh Act is\tmore
\nliberal\t than  that  provided in the Bihar  Act,  for  under
\nclause\t4(2) of Schedule I the net income can in no case  be
\nreduced\t to less than 5 per cent. of the gross\tincome.\t  In
\nany  event  the Act cannot, for reasons stated by me  in  my
\njudgment  in the Bihar appeals, be questioned on the  ground
\nof  absence of public purpose or of compensation.  The\tfact
\nthat the Madhya Pradesh Legislature passed several Acts\t one
\nafter  another, e.g., C.P. Revision of the Land\t Revenue  of
\nMahals Act, 1947, enhancing the land revenue of the Mahals,
\n   1053<\/span>
\nC.P. Revision of Land Revenue of Estates Act, 1939 and\tC.P.
\nRevision  of Land  Revenue of Estates Act, 1947,  increasing
\nthe  land revenue of the estates, Revocations of  Exemptions
\nAct, 1948, revoking the exemptions from land revenue enjoyed
\nby  certain  proprietors and finally the impugned  Act,\t has
\nbeen relied on as evidence of a systematic scheme for expro-
\npriating  the  zamindars  and it is contended  that  such  a
\nconduct\t clearly amounts to a fraud on the constitution.   I
\nam  unable to accept this line of reasoning, for the  series
\nof  legislation\t referred to above may well have  been\tcon-
\nceived\tand  undertaken\t from time to time  in\tutmost\tgood
\nfaith.\t It is true that section 9 of the Act does not\tspe-
\ncifically  indicate when the instalments will begin or\twhat
\nthe amount of each instalment will be but the section clear-
\nly  contemplates that these details should be worked out  by
\nrules  to  be framed under section 91 of the  Act.  Further,
\nunder  section\t10 the State Government is bound  to  direct
\npayment of an interim compensation amounting to one-tenth of
\nthe estimated amount of compensation if the whole amount  is
\nnot  paid  within a period of six months from  the  date  of
\nvesting\t of  the property in the State. I  see\tno  improper
\ndelegation  of legislative power at all. In my\topinion\t all
\nthese heads of objections must be rejected.
\n    Re (g):  The last ground of attack is that the 80 Malgu-
\nzari  Mahals  belonging\t to the petitioner in  Petition\t No.
\n166of 1951 are not estates and, therefore, the impugned\t Act
\nin so far as it purports to acquire the Malguzari Mahals  is
\nnot a law which is protected by article 31-A. Learned  Advo-
\ncate-General of Madhya Pradesh concedes that these Malguzari
\nMahals\tare not estates within the meaning of the C.P.\tLand
\nRevenue\t Act  but contends that the word “estate”  has\tbeen
\nused in a larger sense in article 31-A. In any case the\t im-
\npugned Act is protected by article 31-B.  I do not think  it
\nnecessary  to  discuss the meaning of the word\t“estate”  as
\nused in article 31-A for, in my opinion, the argument of the
\nlearned\t Advocate-General founded on article 31-B  is  well-
\nfounded and ought to prevail.\n<\/p>\n
1054<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr. B. Somayya has drawn our attention to the words “without
\nprejudice  to  the generality of the provisions\t of  article
\n31-A occurring in the beginning of article
\n    31-B  and  contended that the  interpretation  put\tupon
\nthese words by the Judicial Committee in Shibnath Banerjee’s
\ncase(1)\t should\t be applied to them.  I do not see  how\t the
\nprinciples enunciated by the Judicial Committee can have any
\npossible application in the interpretation of article  31-B.
\nArticle 31-B is neither illustrative of, nor dependant\ton.,
\narticle 31-A.  The words referred to were used obviously  to
\nprevent any possible argument that article 31-B cut down the
\nscope or ambit of the general words used in article 31-A.
\n    A  question was raised by Mr. Asthana appearing for\t the
\nRuler  of Khairagarh who is the petitioner in  Petition\t No.
\n268 of 1951.  Khairagarh is one of the States which formerly
\nfell  within the Eastern States Agency.\t On  15th  December,
\n1947,  the Ruler entered into a covenant of merger. In\tthat
\ncovenant  the properties in question were recognised as\t the
\npersonal properties of the Ruler as distinct from the  State
\nproperties. Reference is made to article 362 which  provides
\nthat  in the exercise of the power of Parliament or  of\t the
\nLegislature  of a State to make laws or in the\texercise  of
\nthe  executive power of the Union or of a State, due  regard
\nshall  be had to the guarantee or assurance given under\t any
\nsuch  covenant or agreement as is referred to in clause\t (1)
\nof  article 291 with respect to the personal rights,  privi-
\nleges  and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State. It  is
\nsaid  that  the impugned Act is bad as\tit  contravenes\t the
\nabove provisions. There occur to me several answers to\tthis
\ncontention.  The guarantee or assurance to which due  regard
\nis  to be had is limited to personal rights, privileges\t and
\ndignities  of the Ruler qua a Ruler. It does not  extend  to
\npersonal  property which is different from personal  rights.
\nFurther,  this article does not import any legal  obligation
\nbut is an assurance only.  All that the covenant does is  to
\nrecognise the title of the Ruler as owner of certain proper-
\nties.  To say that the Ruler is
\n(1) (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 241 1[1945] F.C.R.\n<\/p>\n
1055<\/span><\/p>\n
the  owner  of certain properties is not to say\t that  those
\nproperties  shall  in no circumstances be  acquired  by\t the
\nState.\tThe fact that his personal properties are sought  to
\nbe  acquired on payment of compensation\t clearly  recognises
\nhis title just as the titles of other proprietors are recog-
\nnised.\tFinally, the jurisdiction of the Court to decide any
\ndispute\t arising  out of the covenant is barred\t by  article\n<\/p>\n
363.
\n    In\tmy  judgment,  for reasons stated  above  and  those
\nstated in my judgment in the Bihar appeals, these  petitions
\nmust be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    CHANDRASEKHARA  AIYAR J.– I have nothing useful to\t add
\nand  I agree with the orders made by my Lord the Chief\tJus-
\ntice and my learned brothers.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   Petitions dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agents for the petitioners:\n<\/p>\n
Petition No. 166 of 1951: M.S.K. Sastri.\n<\/p>\n
  ,,  No. a317 of 1951: R.S. Narula.\n<\/p>\n
  ,,  Nos. 228, 237,245, 246 and 280 to 285 of
\n      1951: M.S.K. Bastri.\n<\/p>\n
  ,,  Nos. 230, 257 and 287 to 289 of 1951:\n<\/p>\n
      Rajinder Narain.\n<\/p>\n
  ”  No. 268 of 1951: S.P. Varma.\n<\/p>\n
  ,,  No. 318 of 1951: Ganpat Rai.\n<\/p>\n
  ,,  No. 487 of 1951: Naunit Lal.\n<\/p>\n
 Agent\tfor the Respondent (the State of Madhya\t Pradesh)
\nin all the petitions:P. A. Mehta.\n<\/p>\n
1056<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 27 May, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1083 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: VISWESHWAR RAO Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH(AND OTHER CASES) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/05\/1952 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVisweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 27 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 27 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1952-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-23T09:15:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"62 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 27 May, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T09:15:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952\"},\"wordCount\":11773,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952\",\"name\":\"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 27 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T09:15:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 27 May, 1952\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 27 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 27 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-23T09:15:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"62 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 27 May, 1952","datePublished":"1952-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T09:15:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952"},"wordCount":11773,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952","name":"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 27 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T09:15:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visweshwar-rao-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-27-may-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Visweshwar Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 27 May, 1952"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}