# RANI INDER KUMARI ETC. ETC v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 705
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-02-25
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 610 to 614 of 1970
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rani-inder-kumari-etc-etc-v-state-of-rajasthan-anr-6473
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Rajasthar. Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958-S. 3 Constitutiona/ va/idi!Y ofDelay i:: approachinR the Court-Effect of.
By s. 3 of the Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act: 1958 all cash jagirs
sanctioned to the former princes were abolished. Sub-s. (2) of s. 3 provided
for payment of .~cmpensation. The petitioners received compensation from
1958 to 1970. Jn 1970, however, they questioned the validity of s. 3 on the
ground that it is violative of ar:icles 31 and 19( 1) ( f) of the Constitution.
Di>missing the petitions.
HELD : The petitioners have approached the court after inordinate de Jay
and eve.11 then after enjoying the· full benefit under the Act. The petitioners
rnnnot be alJowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath.
Right to the
compensation, of wha1ever nature or content. flowed from !he abolition of the
cash jagirs under the Act and acceptance. of compmJation gave .a quietus to
the daim to have the Act adjudged ~s ultra rires.
The
founda~1on of
the
compensation was the abolition of cash j8girs.
[707G; Fl
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shirulc & Anr. [19681 3' S.C.R. 489,
distinguished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 610 to 614 of 1970.
Petitions under Art. 32 of tlie Constitution of India.
E
Mohan Behari L.,I, for the petitioners.
F
G
H
L. M. Singhvi and S. M. Jain, for the respondents.
fhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C:oswAMI, J.-By the above Writ Petitions the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958 (Act No. 29
of 1958) is challenged as violative of the petitioners'
fundamental
righl:i. under articles 14, 19(1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution.
The facts of Writ Petition No. 610 of 1970 may alone be sufficient. The petitioner states that in view of the near relationship
as
well as in lieu of her husband's share in the parental jagir of Riri the
Maharaja of Bikaner sanctioned a separate cash grant to her husband,
Maharaj Chander Singh ji, of Rs. 1200/- per annum on May
23,
1942. This amount was continuously paid to her husband
by
the
State of Bikaner and was later raised to Rs. 2400/- per annum with
effect from February 2, 1943. This grant of Rs. 2400/- with an addition of Rs. 600/- as pearness allowance was shared between her and
her husband under the order of the Prime Minister of Bikaner State
dated September '18, 1942. This payment of Rs. 1500/~ per annum
was continued to be received by the petitioner through Bikaner
Treasury upto the formation of the State of Rajasthan, on April 7,
1949. After the death of her husband on May 6, 1951, the payment
70 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] :3 s.c.R.
of her grant was continued. The Stat.e of Rajasthan being the. s~ccei
sor to the former Bikaner State recognised this grant and contmued
to make payment to the petitioner. It appears that after the death of
her husband it was decided in December 1953 that no payment should
be made to her thereafter and the regular payments received by h~r
after the ~':ath of l.1er husband would not be recovered. On the petir
tioner·s representation, however, the grant was restored
an?
was
allowed to continue till its discontinuance by the act of the legislature.
Anm:xure 'C' to the petition shows the order .of the
Acc:?untant
General of Raja:sthan to the Treasury Officer, B1kaner, conveymg the
sanction of the Governor for the continuance of the grant of Rs. 125/-
per month to the petitioner from the date the same had bee.n discontinued "till the cash jagirs are resumed". This order is dat1~d June
s. 1958.
The Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958 (briefly the Act)
received the assent of the President on July 13, 1958.
A
B
c
Section :~ (a) of the Act defines cash jagir to mean "any grant of
money by way of jagir or otherwise, made or recognised to have been
nuide by tho Government in any part of the State or ~y the Ruler of
D
a convenanting State without any consideration or in lieu of jagir
rei;umed or abolished otherwise than under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Ja

## Text

A
B
c
D
705
RANI INDER KUMAR! ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
February 25, 1975
[K. K. MATHEW, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Rajasthar. Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958-S. 3 Constitutiona/ va/idi!Y ofDelay i:: approachinR the Court-Effect of.
By s. 3 of the Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act: 1958 all cash jagirs
sanctioned to the former princes were abolished. Sub-s. (2) of s. 3 provided
for payment of .~cmpensation. The petitioners received compensation from
1958 to 1970. Jn 1970, however, they questioned the validity of s. 3 on the
ground that it is violative of ar:icles 31 and 19( 1) ( f) of the Constitution.
Di>missing the petitions.
HELD : The petitioners have approached the court after inordinate de Jay
and eve.11 then after enjoying the· full benefit under the Act. The petitioners
rnnnot be alJowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath.
Right to the
compensation, of wha1ever nature or content. flowed from !he abolition of the
cash jagirs under the Act and acceptance. of compmJation gave .a quietus to
the daim to have the Act adjudged ~s ultra rires.
The
founda~1on of
the
compensation was the abolition of cash j8girs.
[707G; Fl
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shirulc & Anr. [19681 3' S.C.R. 489,
distinguished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 610 to 614 of 1970.
Petitions under Art. 32 of tlie Constitution of India.
E
Mohan Behari L.,I, for the petitioners.
F
G
H
L. M. Singhvi and S. M. Jain, for the respondents.
fhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C:oswAMI, J.-By the above Writ Petitions the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958 (Act No. 29
of 1958) is challenged as violative of the petitioners'
fundamental
righl:i. under articles 14, 19(1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution.
The facts of Writ Petition No. 610 of 1970 may alone be sufficient. The petitioner states that in view of the near relationship
as
well as in lieu of her husband's share in the parental jagir of Riri the
Maharaja of Bikaner sanctioned a separate cash grant to her husband,
Maharaj Chander Singh ji, of Rs. 1200/- per annum on May
23,
1942. This amount was continuously paid to her husband
by
the
State of Bikaner and was later raised to Rs. 2400/- per annum with
effect from February 2, 1943. This grant of Rs. 2400/- with an addition of Rs. 600/- as pearness allowance was shared between her and
her husband under the order of the Prime Minister of Bikaner State
dated September '18, 1942. This payment of Rs. 1500/~ per annum
was continued to be received by the petitioner through Bikaner
Treasury upto the formation of the State of Rajasthan, on April 7,
1949. After the death of her husband on May 6, 1951, the payment
70 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] :3 s.c.R.
of her grant was continued. The Stat.e of Rajasthan being the. s~ccei
sor to the former Bikaner State recognised this grant and contmued
to make payment to the petitioner. It appears that after the death of
her husband it was decided in December 1953 that no payment should
be made to her thereafter and the regular payments received by h~r
after the ~':ath of l.1er husband would not be recovered. On the petir
tioner·s representation, however, the grant was restored
an?
was
allowed to continue till its discontinuance by the act of the legislature.
Anm:xure 'C' to the petition shows the order .of the
Acc:?untant
General of Raja:sthan to the Treasury Officer, B1kaner, conveymg the
sanction of the Governor for the continuance of the grant of Rs. 125/-
per month to the petitioner from the date the same had bee.n discontinued "till the cash jagirs are resumed". This order is dat1~d June
s. 1958.
The Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1958 (briefly the Act)
received the assent of the President on July 13, 1958.
A
B
c
Section :~ (a) of the Act defines cash jagir to mean "any grant of
money by way of jagir or otherwise, made or recognised to have been
nuide by tho Government in any part of the State or ~y the Ruler of
D
a convenanting State without any consideration or in lieu of jagir
rei;umed or abolished otherwise than under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 ....... "
Section 3 which provides for abolition of cash jagirs reads thus :
3 (I) "Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any law, sanad, c.rder, custom or usage in force
in any part of the State, alJ payments of money on account
of cash jagirs to which this Act applies, that wero being made
or enforced at the commencement of this Act, shall be dfacontinued on and from the 1st day of April, 1958 211d all
rnch cash jagirs shall stand abolished as from that day.
(2) Notwithstanding such discontinuance and abolition
the State Government shall continue to make payments by
way of compensation in accordance with scale laid down in
the Second Schedule, and the provisions of the Rajasthan
Pensions Act, 1958, shall apply to such payments".
The Second Schedule \Shows, inter alia, that if the monthlv rate
of the grant exceeds Rs. 50/- but does not exceed Rs. 250j'. the
grantee will be paid the compensation for a period of twelve years
frotn the !st day of April, 1958.
Se~tion 6 ( 2), which is also under attack, provides that "nothing
in this Act or in the rules made there-under shall affect such other
grants .of ~oney a~ the S!ate Government may, from time to time,
by n.o!Ifkat10n 1~ the Official Gazette, declare to be exempt from the
prov1s1ons of this Act, and the provisions of the Rajasthan Pensions
Act, 1958, shall appl•1 to such ·exempted grants of money".
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
RANI INDER KUMARI v. RAJASTHAN (Goswami J.)
707
It is coi:tended on· behalf of the petitioners that section 3 of the
Act is violative of articles 31 and 19(1)(£) of the Constitution and
sectiolli 6(2) is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. According
to the petitioners their cases are covered by a decision of this Court in
State of Madhya, Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde & Anr.,( 1 ) where this
Court held lhe Madhya Pradesh Aboiition of Cash Grants Act, 1963,
to be violative of article 31(2) or in the alternative of article 190) (f)
of the Constitution.
Before we proceed fUrther we have to state that the
petitioners
have an insurmountable obstacle to get over in these petitions. In
Madhya Pradesh cas0 . (supra) the petitione;s therein approached the
Hi~ Court soon after the,promu!gation of the particular Act in 1963
and the High Court accepted their conteution that tho Act was ultra.
i·iru of article. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution and was not saved by
sub-article (5) thereof.
The State of Madhya Pradesh appeared to
thi• Court by a certificate obtain,ed from the High Ceurt under article
I 33(l)(c) and this Court in the above mentioned decision dismissed
the State's appeals. In the present case the petitioners took advantage
of tho provisions of the Act, particularly sub-section (2) of section
3 by which payments by way of compensation were allowed .'1otwithstaadini; the abolition of the grant under sub-section (1) of section
3. So far as the abolition of the cash jagirs was concerned it was
complete on and from the 1st day of April, 1958 under sub-section
( l) of section 3 of the Act. The petitioners had been in enjoyment
of the compensation in accordance with the scale laid down in
the
Second Schedule from the inception of the Act which abolished the
cash jagirs on and from 1st April, 1958, till 31st March, 1970, and
approached this Court under article 32
of
the
Constitution
on
October 12, 1970, when under sub-section (2) of section 3 the compensation was discontinued.
The petitioners cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the
sa111e breath. Right to the compensation, of whatever nature or content, flowed from the abolition of the cash jagirs underthe
Act.
Acceptance of the compensation under the Act for the full length of
the period of twelve years completely neg1tives the scope of attack
upon the abolition of the grant. The foundation of the compensation
is the abolition of the cash jagirs. Section 3(2) under which the compoosation is available is integrally connected with section 3 (1) which
has 11bolishecl the cash jagirs from a specified date and it is only on
such abolition that compenstion is rendered possible. Acceptance of
compensation, therefore, gives a quietus to the claim to have the Act
adjudged as ultra vires. The petitioners cannot eat a cake and have
it. At any rate the petitioners have aporoached the court after inordinate delay and even then after enjoying the full
ben~-fit under the
Act. The petitions, therefore, cannot be entertained.
The petitioners also contend that section 6(2) of the Act is discriminatory and is violative of the equality clause under article 14
af the Constitution. Section 6 i5 a saving provision.
The case of the-
-
(1)(1968]3 S.C. R. 489.
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975) 3 S .. C.R.
petitioners is that a go0d number of persons have been exempted
from the operation of the abolition of the grant. It is submitted that
whllc under section 6(1) there is guidance with regard to the exemption, there is none whatsoever under section 6(2). Whatever the :merit
of this submission, the petitioners are not going to be benefited by
striking down section 6 (2) of the Act. Assuming it is ultra vires,
section 6(2) is clearly severable from the rest of the provisions. On
the other hand, depending upon:· this provision, the petitioners may
be able to receive appropriate consideration from the Government
to b;: included in the list of exemptees. Indeed,, Dr.
Singhvi,
the
learned Advocate General, gave us to understand that he would himself recommend the case of three of the petitioners as deserving consid(;ration under section 6(2). We do not know whether the other
two petitioners may also be able to convince the Government about
the merit of th·~ir case for equal consideration. We assume that under
these provisions the Government has certain principles on whic:h it
acts to give relief to the needy. It is, therefore, idle for the petitioners
to have a decision from this Court to strike down a provision which
may u!(im::i•cly be to their aid. We are not, therefore, inclined to pa~s
on this submission advanced by the petitioners. In the result the petitions fail and are dismis,;ed, but in the entire circumstances of the
case the parties will bear their own costs.
P.B.R.
Petition dismissed.
A
B
c
D
1,