{"id":67651,"date":"1960-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960"},"modified":"2015-07-29T04:51:14","modified_gmt":"2015-07-28T23:21:14","slug":"the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now … vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now … vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 796, \t\t 1960 SCR (3) 106<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Imam, Syed Jaffer, Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH(NOW MADHYA PRADESH)\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMORADHWAJ SINGH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/02\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nSARKAR, A.K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  796\t\t  1960 SCR  (3) 106\n\n\nACT:\n       Jagirs,\tAbolition of-Constitutional validity  of  enactment\n       Vindhya\tPradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land  Reforms  Act,\n       1952  (XI of 1952), SS. 22(1), 37, Schedule cl.\t(4)(e)-Code\n       of  Civil  Procedure (Act V of 1908), S.\t 9-Constitution\t of\n       India, Art. 31 A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThese appeals raised the question of constitutional validity\nof the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of jagirs and Land  Reforms\nAct,  I952 (XI Of 1952).  Applications were made before\t the\njudicial Commissioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution  on\nthe  ground  that  various  provisions\tof  the\t Act  placed\nunreasonable restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental\nrights\t guaranteed  by\t the  Constitution.   The   judicial\nCommissioner  held that the Act, excepting S. 22(1),  s.  37\nand   cl.   (4)(e)  of\tthe  Schedule  to   the\t  Act,\t was\nconstitutionally  valid.   The State appealed  against\tthat\npart  of  the  order which  declared  the  three  provisions\nunconstitutional and one of the petitioners appealed against\nthe order declaring the rest of the Act constitutional.\nHeld, that the appeal of the State must be allowed and\tthat\nof the petitioner dismissed.\nIt was not correct to say that S. 22 of the Act, which\tlays\ndown  the  scheme for giving, effect to S. 7(a) of  the\t Act\nwhich  permits\tthe  jagirdars to remain  in  possession  of\ncertain lands even after the abolition of their jagirs, is a\npiece of colourable legislation and, therefore, ultra  vires\nthe   Legislature.    That  section  cannot   be   said\t  to\ndiscriminate as between jagirdars on the one hand and  other\noccupants  of land, to whom s. 28(1) applies, on the  other,\nsince they belong to distinct and different classes.\n107\nEven  assuming that they belong to the same class and S.  22\nis discriminatory, that section is protected by Art. 31A  of\nthe Constitution.\nThe  question  as to colourable legislation' is\t really\t one\nrelating to legislative competency and there can be no doubt\nthat the Vindhya Pradesh Legislature was perfectly competent\nto enact the impugned provisions under Entry 18, List II  of\nthe Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.\nK.   C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The State of Orissa.  [1954]\nS.C.R.\ti  and\tRaghubir Singh v. The State  of\t Ajmer\t(Now\nRajasthan).<\/a> [1959] SuPP1. (1) S.C.R. 478, relied on.\nThere  was no substance in the contention that s. 37 of\t the\nAct is repugnant to s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure\t and\nconsequently ultra vires the State Legislature.\t The Vindaya\nPradesh Legislature had undoubtedly the power under Entry 3,\nList II of the Seventh Schedule to make a provision like  s.\n37 Of the Act and, once it did so, the last part of s. 9  of\nthe  Code  would  apply and the jurisdiction  of  the  Civil\nCourts\twould be barred by s. 9 of the Code read with S.  37\nof the Act.\nNor  was it correct to say that cl. (4)(e) of  the  Schedule\ndeprives  the jagirdar of his proprietory  interest  without\ncompensation.  Although he may have to pay rent for the land\nremaining with him, no revenue for such land was any  longer\npayable\t by  him and the revenue is taken  into\t account  in\nassessing compensation.\nThe  entire Act, therefore, falls within the  protection  of\nArt.  31A of the Constitution and, in view of the  decisions\nof  this  Court,  its  constitutional  validity\t is   beyond\nquestion.\nCase-law referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 40 to\t110
\n       of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 12, 1953,
\n       of   the\t former\t Judicial  Commissioner’s  Court,   Vindhya
\n       Pradesh, Rewa, in Misc.\tApplications (Writ) Nos. 51 to\t119
\n       and 121 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n
       C.   K.\tDaphtary, Solicitor-General of India, M.  Adhikari,
\n       Advocate-General\t for the State of Madhya Pradesh and I.\t N.
\n       Shroff,\tfor the appellant (in C.As. Nos. 40 to 109  of\t55)
\n       and respondent (in C.A. No. 110\/55).\n<\/p>\n
       K.   B.\tAsthana, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji,  Rameshwar
\n       Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents (in C.As. Nos. 40,
\n       51,  52,\t 54,  65 and 100155) and  appellant  (in  C.A.\tNo.
\n       110\/55).\n<\/p>\n
       1960.   February,  24.\tThe  Judgment  of  the\tCourt\twas
\n       delivered by
\n       108<\/span>
\n       WANCHOO,\t  J.-These  seventy-one\t appeals  on   certificates
\n       granted\tby  the Judicial Commissioner  of  Vindhya  Pradesh
\n       arise  out  of  seventy\tpetitions under\t art.  226  of\tthe
\n       Constitution   filed  before  that  Court  challenging\tthe
\n       constitutionality of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs
\n       and  Land Reforms Act, No. XI of 1952,  (hereinafter  called
\n       the Act).  They were disposed of by a common judgment by the
\n       Judicial\t Commissioner.\t We  shall also\t dispose  of  these
\n       appeals,\t by a common judgment.\tSeventy (Nos. 40  to  109),
\n       out  of these appeals, are by the State ‘of Vindhya  Pradesh
\n       (now Madhya Pradesh) while one (No. 110) is by the Brijindar
\n       Singh, a jagirdar.\n<\/p>\n
       The  case  of the petitioners in the Court of  the  Judicial
\n       Commissioner  was  that\tthe  Act  was  unconstitutional\t as
\n       various provisions in it placed an unreasonable\trestriction
\n       on the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed to\tthe
\n       petitioners  under  Part\t III  of  the  Constitution.\tThe\n<\/p>\n
       -Judicial Commissioner held that the Act was constitutional,
\n       except for three provisions thereof, namely, S. 22(1), s. 37
\n       and  cl.\t (4) (e) of the Schedule to the Act.   The  seventy
\n       appeals\tby the ‘State are with respect to this part of\tthe
\n       order  declaring\t these three  provisions  unconstitutional.
\n       The  appeal of Brijindar Singh is against that part  of\tthe
\n       order by which the rest of the Act was held constitutional.
\n       We  shall  first deal with the appeal  of  Brijindar  singh.
\n       Learned\tcounsel for Brijindar Singh was unable-and  in\tour
\n       opinion\trightly-to challenge the constitutionality  of\tthe
\n       Act as a whole in view of art. 31-A of the Constitution\tand
\n       the  decisions  of  this\t court in The  State  of  Bihar\t v.
\n       Maharajadhiraja\tSir Kameshwar Singh<\/a> (1), Visweshwar Rao\t v.
\n       The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a> (2) Raja Suriya Pal Singh v. The
\n       state  of U.P. (3), K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The  State
\n       of Orissa (4), Thakur Amar Singhji v. The State of Rajasthan<\/a>
\n       (5),  Raja Bhairebendra Narayan Bhup v. “he State  of  Assam
\n       (6), Sri Ram Ram Narain v. The state of Bombay (7), Raghubir
\n       Singh v. The State of Ajmer (now Rajasthan) (8) and Atma Ram
\n       v. The State of Punjab (9), relating to similar\tlegislation
\n       in the
\n       (1) [1952] S.C R. 889.\n<\/p>\n
       (2) [1952] S.C R. 1020.\n<\/p>\n
       (3) [1952]  S.C.R. 1056.\n<\/p>\n
       (4) [1954] S.C.R. i.\n<\/p>\n
       (5) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 303.\n<\/p>\n
       (6) [1956] S.C.R. 303.\n<\/p>\n
       (7) [1939] SUPPL. (1)S.C R. 499
\n       (8) [1959] Suppl. (1) S.C.R.  478
\n       (9) [1959] Suppl. (1) S.C.R. 748.\n<\/p>\n
       109<\/span><\/p>\n
       States  of  Bihar,  Madhya Pradesh,  Uttar  Pradesh  Orissa,
\n       Rajasthan,  Assam,  Bombay,  Ajmer and Punjab.\tIt  is\tnot
\n       necessary therefore to examine the provisions of the Act\t in
\n       detail.\tIn the circumstances, Appeal No. 110 is\t dismissed;
\n       but as it was not pressed we think it right that the parties
\n       should bear their own costs of this appeal.
\n       Now we turn to the appeals by the State.\t The object of\tthe
\n       Act  is\tto  resume jagir-lands.\t Sec. 5\t provides  for\tthe
\n       appointment  of\ta date for the resumption of any  class\t of
\n       jagir-land  by notification and power is given to the  State
\n       Government  to fix different dates for different classes\t of
\n       jagir-lands.   Sec. 6 provides for the consequences of  such
\n       resumption.  Sec. 7, however lays down that  notwithstanding
\n       anything\t contained  in s. 6, certain lands will\t remain\t in
\n       possession of jagirdars and cl. (a) thereof is material\tand
\n       may be quoted here-\n<\/p>\n
       ” The jagirdar shall continue to remain in possession of his
\n       sir  and\t khudkasht  to\tthe  extent  and  subject  to\tthe
\n       conditions and restrictions specified in Ch. IV.\t ”
\n       Sec. 10 and the subsequent sections appearing in Ch.  III of
\n       the  Act provide for compensation and the Schedule  provides
\n       the  manner  in which the compensation  shall  be  computed.
\n       Then  comes  Ch.\t  IV, which deals with\tsir  and  khudkasht
\n       lands.  See. 20 provides for an application by the  jagirdar
\n       for  allotment  of land for personal cultivation.   See.\t 21
\n       provides for an enquiry by the Tahsildar on such application
\n       in the prescribed manner, and the allotment of land and\tthe
\n       issue  of a patta thereof to the jagirdar having\t regard\t to
\n       the remaining provisions of the Chapter.\t Then comes s.\t22,
\n       which may be quoted in full-\n<\/p>\n
       ”  (1)  A jagirdar shall be allotted all sir  and  khudkasht
\n       lands  which he was cultivating personally for a\t continuous
\n       period  of  three years immediately preceding  the  date\t of
\n       resumption.\n<\/p>\n
       ”  (2) A jagirdar whose jagir-lands have been resumed  under
\n       this Act-\n<\/p>\n
       (a)  who\t is  not allotted any sir or khudkasht\tland  under
\n       sub-section (1), or
\n       110<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
       (b)  who had been allotted any such land which is less  than
\n       the  minimum  area,
\n       may if he applies in this behalf, be allotted any other\tsir
\n       or khudkasht land in his personal cultivation at the date of
\n       resumption or where there is no such land or sufficient area
\n       of  such\t land any unoccupied cultivable waste land  in\tthe
\n       jagir-land subject to availability of such land, so that-\n<\/p>\n
       (i)  in\ta  case\t falling  under cl.  (a),  the\ttotal  area
\n       allotted\t to  him  under this sub-section is  equal  to\tthe
\n       minimum area, and\n<\/p>\n
       (ii) in\ta case falling under cl. (b), the area allotted\t to
\n       him  under this sub-section together with the area  allotted
\n       under sub-section (1) is equal to the minimum area.
\n       Explanation-In  this  sub-section,  the\texpression  minimum
\n       means  ten  per cent. of the total cultivated  land  in\tthe
\n       jagir-land  at the date of resumption or 30 acres  whichever
\n       is greater:\n<\/p>\n
       Provided\t that in no case the minimum area shall exceed\t250
\n       acres.”\n<\/p>\n
       Chapter\tV deals with rights of tenants, grove  holders\tand
\n       occupants  in  jagir-land and confers  certain  benefits\t on
\n       them.   Chapter\tVI  provides  for  the\tmachinery  and\tthe
\n       procedure  for  carrying out the purposes of the\t Act.\tThe
\n       last  section  (42) gives power to the State  Government\t to
\n       make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act.
\n       The learned -Judicial Commissioner has held that s.    22(1)
\n       is a colourable piece of legislation.  The scheme of   s. 22
\n       is  to  give effect to s. 7(a) by which certain\tlands  were
\n       allowed\tto  remain  in\tthe  possession\t of  the  jagirdar.
\n       Section\t22(1)  lays down that all sir and  khudkasht  lands
\n       which a jagirdar was cultivating personally for a continuous
\n       period  of  three years immediately preceding  the  date\t of
\n       resumption shall be allotted to him by the Tahsildar.   Sub-
\n       section (2) provides for those cases where there is no  land
\n       which  can  be allotted to a jagirdar under  sub-s.  (1)\t or
\n       where the land, which can be allotted to him under  sub-sec-
\n       tion  (1)  is less than the minimum area as defined  in\tthe
\n       section.\t  In such a case the jagirdar can be  allotted\tany
\n       other sir or khudkasht land in his personal culti-\n<\/p>\n
       111<\/span><\/p>\n
       vation  at  the date of resumption upto\tthe  minimum  area.
\n       Where,  however, the minimum is not reached even after  such
\n       allotment, the jagirdar can be allotted under sub-s. (2) any
\n       unoccupied  cultivable  waste land in the jagir\tsubject\t to
\n       availability of such land upto that area.  The minimum  area
\n       means  ten  per cent. of the total cultivated  area  in\tthe
\n       jagir  at  the date of resumption or 30 acres  whichever\t is
\n       greater\tsubject to the proviso that in no case the  minimum
\n       area  shall  exceed 250 acres.  In other words,\ts.  22\t(1)
\n       provides\t that in the first instance the jagirdar  will\tget
\n       all his sir and khudkasht land which he had been cultivating
\n       for three years continuously before the date of\tresumption.
\n       If,  however, there is no such land or if the land  of  this
\n       kind allotted to a jagirdar is less than the minimum area he
\n       will  be\t entitled to further allotment out of  the  sir\t or
\n       khudkasht  land in his possession for less than three  years
\n       to make up the minimum area.  Lastly if the minimum area\t is
\n       not made up even by allotment of such land which has been in
\n       the jagirdar’s possession for less than three years he  will
\n       be entitled to allotment of unoccupied cultivable waste land
\n       subject to availability of such land to make up the  minimum
\n       area;  but  the provisions of sub-s. (2) are  subject  to  a
\n       minimum\tof 250 acres.  We have not been able to\t understand
\n       how  these  provisions can be called a piece  of\t colourable
\n       legislation.  The learned Judicial Commissioner seems to\t be
\n       of  the\tview that as a period of  three\t years’\t continuous
\n       cultivation is made a condition of allotment under s. 22(1),
\n       there   is  discrimination  between  jagirdars\tand   other
\n       occupants of land in whose case s. 28(1) provides that every
\n       person  who is entered in the revenue record as an  occupant
\n       of any jagir-land at the date of resumption, shall be deemed
\n       to be pattadar tenant in respect of such land which shall be
\n       assessed\t  at  the  village  rate.   The\t learned   Judicial
\n       Commissioner  was not unconscions of the provisions of  art.
\n       31-A  which  lays  down that no such  legislation  would\t be
\n       struck  down on the ground of discrimination under art.\t14.
\n       He  however thought that this was an extra  condition  which
\n       had  been imposed so that the jagirdar might.be deprived\t of
\n       as much sir and khudkasht land as possible subject
\n       112<\/span>
\n       to  the\tminimum\t and  that this\t was  done  to\tcreate\tin-
\n       convenience  to the jagirdars whom the legislature  did\tnot
\n       like.   He  therefore  thought  that  such  legislation\twas
\n       altogether  outside  the power of the  legislature  and\twas
\n       invalid as a colourable piece of legislation.
\n       In the first place we cannot see how any discrimination\tcan
\n       arise  in  circumstances like this, for\tthe  jagirdars\tare
\n       obviously one class while the occupants of lands other  than
\n       jagirdars  belong  to another class.  Secondly, even  if\t it
\n       could  be  held that jagirdars and other occupants  of  land
\n       stood  in the same class and there was discrimination  under
\n       s. 22(1) as compared to s. 28(1), such discrimination  could
\n       not  be a ground for striking down s. 22(1) in view  of\tthe
\n       specific\t constitutional\t provision in art.  31-A.   It\twas
\n       because\tof  -this  difficulty  that  the  learned  Judicial
\n       Commissioner  did not strike down s. 22(1) on the ground\t of
\n       discrimination  but held that it was a colourable  piece\t of
\n       legislation.  What is a colourable piece of legislation\thas
\n       been  laid down by this Court in K. 0. Gajapati Narayan\tDeo
\n       v. The State of Orissa (1).  It was pointed there that :-
\n       “The question whether a law was a colourable legislation and
\n       as  such void did not depend on the motive or bona fides\t of
\n       the  legislature in passing the law but upon the\t competency
\n       of the legislature to pass that particular law, and what the
\n       courts have to determine in such cases is whether though the
\n       legislature  has purported to act within the limits  of\tits
\n       powers,\tit has in substance and reality transgressed  those
\n       powers,\tthe transgression being veiled by what appears,\t on
\n       proper examination, to be a mere pretence or disguise.\tThe
\n       whole  doctrine of colourable legislation is based upon\tthe
\n       maxim  that  you\t cannot do indirectly what  you\t cannot\t do
\n       directly.”\n<\/p>\n
       Applying\t this  principle  it is obvious\t that  the  Vindhya
\n       Pradesh legislature in this case had full competence to make
\n       this  provision\tunder  Entry 18, List  II  of  the  Seventh
\n       Schedule.  There is no question here of transgressing  those
\n       powers  and  veiling the transgression under a  pretence\t or
\n       disguise.   We do not think it was proper for  the  Judicial
\n       Commisisioner to
\n       (1)  [1954] S.C.R. (1)
\n       113<\/span>
\n       ascribe motives to the legislature as he seems to have  done
\n       by   saying  that  the  provision  was  made  for   creating
\n       inconvenience to a class whom the legislature did not  like.
\n       Nor do we think that there is any force in the argument that
\n       art.  31-A  has no application to  provisions  dealing  with
\n       allotment of land, for ss. 7 and 22 of the Act work out\tthe
\n       scheme\tof  acquisition\t of  estates  and  are\t incidental
\n       provisions  which are equally protected under  that  Article
\n       along  with the main provisions contained in ss. 5 and 6\t of
\n       the  Act;  (see Raghubir Singh v. The State  of\tAjmer  (now
\n       Rajasthan) (1).\tThe provisions of s. 22 as a whole  provide
\n       a  scheme for carrying out the intention of the\tlegislature
\n       expressed  in  s.  7(a) of the Act and are  in  our  opinion
\n       perfectly constitutional.\n<\/p>\n
       We  now turn to s. 37 of the Act.  That section\tappears\t in
\n       the procedural part of the Act and is as follows:-
\n       ”  (1)  No civil court shall have  jurisdiction\tto  settle,
\n       decide or deal with any question which is, by or under  this
\n       Act,  required to be settled, decided or dealt with  by\tthe
\n       Tahsildar,   the\t Deputy\t Commissioner,\tthe   Land   Reform
\n       Commissioner, or the Board    of Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
       (2)  Except as otherwise provided in this Act no order of  a
\n       Tahsildar,   a\tDeputy\tCommissioner,\tthe   Land   Reform
\n       Commissioner,  or the Board of Revenue under this Act  shall
\n       be called in question in any court.”\n<\/p>\n
       Sub-s.  (1)  thus takes away the jurisdiction of\t the  civil
\n       court  to  decide any matter which under the Act\t is  to\t be
\n       decided by the Tahsildar, the Deputy Commissioner, the  Land
\n       Reform  Commissioner  or the Board of Revenue.\tSub-s.\t(2)
\n       provides\t that no order passed by any of\t these\tauthorities
\n       shall  be  called  in question in any  court.   The  learned
\n       Judicial\t Commissioner has held this section invalid on\tthe
\n       ground  that  it.is repugnant to s. 9 of the Code  of  Civil
\n       Procedure, inasmuch as it takes away the jurisdiction of the
\n       civil  court which it has under that section.  Sec.  9  lays
\n       down  that the civil courts shall have jurisdiction  to\ttry
\n       all  suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which  their
\n       cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
\n       (1)  (1959] Suppl (1) C.R. 478
\n       114<\/span>
\n       Sec.  9 therefore gives jurisdiction to civil courts to\ttry
\n       all  suits  of  a civil nature  excepting  those\t which\tare
\n       expressly  or  impliedly\t barred\t by  any  other\t law.\tThe
\n       provision  of s. 37 is an express bar to the  matters  dealt
\n       with in the Act being agitated in civil courts.\tThe learned
\n       Judicial\t Commissioner seems to think that s. 9\ttakes  away
\n       the  power of the legislature of a Part State  like  Vindhya
\n       Pradesh\tto  legislate with respect to the  jurisdiction\t of
\n       courts.\t The power to the legislature is given by Entry\t 3,
\n       List 11 and cannot be affected by s. 9 of the Code of  Civil
\n       Procedure.   As a matter of fact s. 9 recognises that  if  a
\n       competent legislature passes a law barring the  jurisdiction
\n       of  a  civil court, the jurisdiction of the civil  court\t to
\n       take cognizance of such suit, even though of a civil nature,
\n       is ousted.  It was in our opinion unnecessary to go into\t s.
\n       22 of the Government of Part C States Act, No. XLIX of  1951
\n       and  compare  it with art. 254 of the Constitution  in  this
\n       connection.   Sec. 37 does not in any way affect s.  9.\tAll
\n       that  it\t provides  is  that  civil  courts  shall  have\t no
\n       jurisdiction to hear certain matters of a civil nature;\tand
\n       s.  9 expressly recognizes that if such a provision is  made
\n       by  any\tlaw,  the jurisdiction of  the\tcivil  courts  will
\n       disappear.   There  is thus no question\tof  any\t repugnancy
\n       between s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and s. 37 of the
\n       Act.   The  legislature\tin this case had power\tto  make  a
\n       provision like s. 37 and once it did so, the last part of s.
\n       9  will apply and the jurisdiction of the civil courts  will
\n       become barred by virtue of s. 9 read with s. 37 of the  Act.
\n       The  decision of the Judicial Commissioner there. fore  that
\n       s.  37  is  ultra vires the powers of  the  Vindhya  Pradesh
\n       legislature is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
       Lastly we come to el. (4) (e) of the Schedule.  The Schedule
\n       provides\t for the method of computing compensation.   Clause
\n       (3)  lays  down the manner in which the gross  income  of  a
\n       jagirdar shall be arrived at.  Clause (4) lays down how\tnet
\n       income  will be arrived at after making certain\tdeductions.
\n       One  of these deductions is in sub-cl. (e) of  this  Clause,
\n       which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Where  the  jagirdar is allotted any sir. or  khudkasht\t or
\n       other land or any grove under this Act an
\n       115<\/span>
\n       amount equal to the valuation of rent for such land or grove
\n       for the basic year at the current settlement rates (less the
\n       land  revenue paid by him in respect of such land and  grove
\n       in the basic year to be ascertained in such manner as may be
\n       prescribed).”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis  sub-clause is in fact a contra entry to  sub-cl.\t(b)\n<\/p>\n
       (i) of cl. (3).\tThe method of calculation provided by these
\n       two  clauses  is that the gross income is first\tarrived\t at
\n       without taking into account the land which remains with\tthe
\n       jagirdar\t under s. 7 (a).  Thereafter in order to arrive\t at
\n       the net income for the purpose of compensation the rent\tfor
\n       sir  and khudkasht land which remains with the  jagirdar\t is
\n       taken  into account and its value determined under  el.\t(3)\n<\/p>\n
       (b) (i) minus the revenue payable in respect thereof.   This
\n       is then deducted from the gross income, for the reason  that
\n       this land remains, with the jagirdar.  The learned  Judicial
\n       Commissioner  thinks  that the arithmetical result  of  this
\n       provision  is that so far as these lands are  concerned\tthe
\n       landlord\t has lost his proprietary interest and has  to\tpay
\n       rent  to\t the  government,  but at the  same  time  gets\t no
\n       compensation.  it  should however be noted that\tthough\tthe
\n       landlord\t may  have  to\tpay rent in  future  for  the  land
\n       remaining  with him, he does not pay any revenue\t which\twas
\n       payable\tby  him so far with respect to such land.   In\tthe
\n       circumstances,  it cannot be said that he has been  deprived
\n       of the proprietary interest without any compensation, for he
\n       is  relieved of the charge of paying land revenue which\thas
\n       also  been taken into account in arriving at the net  assets
\n       for  that  purpose,  and\t that is all  that  he\tcan  expect
\n       considering that the land remains in his possession for\tall
\n       other  purposes.\t We are therefore of opinion that there\t is
\n       nothing unconstitutional in el. (4) (e) of the Schedule.
\n       We  therefore  dismiss Appeal No. 110 but order\tparties\t to
\n       bear  their own costs.  We allow Appeals Nos. 40 to 109\tand
\n       hold  that s. 22 (1), s. 37 and cl. (4) (e) of the  Schedule
\n       are  valid and constitutional.  As the respondents in  these
\n       appeals\thave not seriously contested them we order  parties
\n       to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Appeal No. 110 dissmissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Appeals Nos. 40 to 109 allowed.\n<\/p>\n
       116<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now … vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 796, 1960 SCR (3) 106 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Imam, Syed Jaffer, Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH(NOW MADHYA PRADESH) Vs. RESPONDENT: MORADHWAJ […]<\/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-67651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now ... vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960 - 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\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now ... vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-28T23:21:14+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now … vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-28T23:21:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960\"},\"wordCount\":3122,\"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\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960\",\"name\":\"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now ... vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-28T23:21:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now … vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now ... vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960 - 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\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now ... vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-28T23:21:14+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now … vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960","datePublished":"1960-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-28T23:21:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960"},"wordCount":3122,"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\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960","name":"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now ... vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-28T23:21:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-vindhya-pradeshnow-vs-moradhwaj-singh-and-others-on-24-february-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Vindhya Pradesh(Now … vs Moradhwaj Singh And Others on 24 February, 1960"}]},{"@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\/67651","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=67651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67651\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}