A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The landmark case Thakur Raghubir Singh and Others v. The State of Ajmer (now Rajasthan) and Others, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, revolves around the constitutional validity of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Ajmer Act III of 1955). The petitioners, landowners and intermediaries including jagirdars, challenged the Act’s constitutionality on the grounds that it violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and that the Ajmer legislature lacked competence under Entry 36 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. They argued the Act unlawfully vested acquired property in the Union, thereby making it ultra vires the State legislature’s power.
The Supreme Court, while delivering a detailed and nuanced judgment, rejected these contentions. The Court upheld the legislative competence of the Ajmer legislature to enact the law and validated the provisions under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court observed that even retrospective cancellation of leases under Section 8 and fixation of maximum rent under Section 38 were ancillary to the main object of the Act and thus constitutionally protected. The Court also clarified that jagirdars, though assignees of land revenue, were holders of estates and thus came under the Act’s purview.
The judgment reaffirmed the State’s authority to implement land reforms and abolish intermediary rights, aligning with India’s constitutional vision of agrarian justice and equitable land distribution.
Keywords:
Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, Land Acquisition, Jagirdars, Constitutional Validity, Legislative Competence, Article 31-A, Article 19(1)(f), Entry 36 List II.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title:
Thakur Raghubir Singh and Others v. The State of Ajmer (Now Rajasthan) and Others
ii) Case Number:
Petitions Nos. 230-239, 241, 249-251, 256, 257, 290, 303, 306-349, 351, 352, 355-357 of 1955 and Nos. 33 & 36 of 1956
iii) Judgement Date:
November 14, 1958
iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum:
S.R. Das, C.J.; N.H. Bhagwati, B.P. Sinha, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.
vi) Author:
Justice K.N. Wanchoo
vii) Citation:
(1959) Supp. SCR 478
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Ajmer Act III of 1955), Sections 4, 8, 38; Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(f), 31, 31-A, 32; Seventh Schedule List I Entry 33, List II Entry 36, List III Entry 42.
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Land Reforms Law, Agrarian Law, Administrative Law
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case emerged in the backdrop of post-independence land reforms initiated across India. The Government of India prioritized abolishing intermediary tenures to achieve social and economic justice. Ajmer, then a Part C State, enacted Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955, following this national policy. The Act vested intermediary estates in the State and regulated tenancy rights and rents.
The petitioners challenged the Act’s constitutional validity before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. They asserted that it infringed upon their right to property and exceeded legislative competence. The Supreme Court was thus tasked with determining the constitutionality of the Act, the legislative power of the Ajmer legislature, and the scope of protection available under Article 31-A.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners were landowners and intermediaries, including jagirdars, from Ajmer. The Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 was passed to abolish intermediaries and vest their estates in the State. Section 4 vested all estates held by intermediaries in the State Government on a notified date. The President assented to the Act on May 29, 1955. The State notified August 1, 1955 as the date of vesting.
The petitioners filed petitions under Article 32 alleging:
-
The Ajmer legislature lacked competence under Entry 36 of List II.
-
Section 8 permitted retrospective cancellation of leases violating their property rights.
-
Section 38 imposed an unreasonable restriction by capping rent.
Some jagirdars argued that as mere assignees of land revenue, only their revenue rights—not ownership of land—were acquired.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the Ajmer legislature was competent to enact the Act under Entry 36 of List II?
ii) Whether Section 8 allowing retrospective cancellation of leases violated Article 19(1)(f)?
iii) Whether Section 38 unreasonably restricted landlords’ rights to let land?
iv) Whether jagirdars’ rights as landowners were validly acquired under the Act?
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:
The counsel contended that the Ajmer legislature exceeded its competence since property vested in the President (Union), thus falling under Entry 33 of List I, not Entry 36 of List II. Hence, the State could not legislate on acquisition for Union purposes.
Further, Section 8 retroactively invalidated leases granted after June 1, 1950. These leases were lawful when executed, as no restriction existed then. Cancellation exposed them to potential compensation liabilities, violating Article 19(1)(f).
They argued that Section 38 unreasonably capped rent at one-and-a-half times the land revenue, restricting landlords’ commercial liberty to lease property.
For jagirdars, they asserted that jagirs were assignments of revenue, not ownership of land. Thus, only revenue interests were acquired; land ownership remained with jagirdars.
They relied on constitutional provisions in Part XII, emphasizing the Union’s financial and executive control over Part C States, thereby restricting Ajmer’s legislative competence.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:
The respondents maintained that the Act served State purposes — redistribution of land and agrarian reforms — thus squarely falling under Entry 36 of List II. Vesting property in the President post-acquisition did not alter legislative competence since competence is determined by purpose, not devolution.
They emphasized that Article 31-A(1)(a) safeguarded such laws, insulating them from Article 19(1)(f) challenges.
Regarding Section 8, they argued that retroactive cancellation targeted fraudulent leases executed to circumvent imminent legislation. The Collector’s scrutiny ensured genuine leases remained untouched, making the provision ancillary to reform objectives.
For Section 38, respondents justified rent ceilings as necessary to prevent indirect resurgence of intermediaries. Land reforms envisioned self-cultivation. Allowing unrestricted rents would recreate exploitative tenancy.
Concerning jagirdars, they demonstrated that jagirs involved proprietary interests. Grants under sanads conferred estate ownership alongside revenue assignment, thus falling within the Act’s ambit.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955
-
Section 4 – Vesting of estates in State.
-
Section 8 – Retrospective cancellation of fraudulent leases.
-
Section 38 – Rent control provision.
ii) Constitution of India
-
Article 19(1)(f) – Right to property (before 44th Amendment).
-
Article 31-A(1)(a) – Protection for agrarian reform laws.
-
Article 32 – Right to constitutional remedies.
-
Seventh Schedule, Entry 33 List I, Entry 36 List II, Entry 42 List III – Legislative competence.
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Supreme Court upheld that legislative competence flows from the Act’s purpose, not the property’s vesting destination. Since the Act targeted State agrarian reforms, Entry 36 List II applied. The argument about property vesting in the Union lacked merit as legislative purpose governs competence【5】.
ii) Section 8 was ancillary to the Act’s purpose. It prevented intermediaries from frustrating reforms through collusive leases. Retrospective scrutiny ensured only fraudulent leases faced cancellation. The provision was protected under Article 31-A(1)(a)【5】.
iii) The ceiling under Section 38 discouraged intermediaries from sub-letting and indirectly perpetuating intermediacy. Encouraging self-cultivation justified controlled rents. Thus, it was a reasonable measure protected by Article 31-A(1)(a)【5】.
iv) Jagirdars held estates, not mere revenue assignments. Sanads conferred proprietary interests, making jagirdars intermediaries under the Act. Hence, entire estates validly vested in the State【5】.
v) The petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit.
b. OBITER DICTA
i) The Court noted that retrospective laws are not per se unconstitutional if ancillary to a constitutionally protected object.
ii) Property vesting under Articles in Part XII does not determine legislative competence under Seventh Schedule.
c. GUIDELINES
-
Legislative competence is tested by legislative purpose, not where acquired property vests.
-
Ancillary provisions like Section 8 and 38 are protected under Article 31-A(1)(a) if they support agrarian reforms.
-
Jagirdari interests encompass both revenue assignments and proprietary estate rights.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment strongly fortified India’s land reform jurisprudence. It clarified that constitutional protection under Article 31-A shields not only primary acquisition but also ancillary provisions ensuring the reforms’ efficacy. By rejecting technical arguments on legislative competence, the Court empowered States to pursue substantive agrarian restructuring.
The verdict balanced private rights with larger societal interests in equitable land distribution. It reiterated that property rights were not absolute when weighed against constitutional mandates for social justice. The recognition that jagirdars held full proprietary interests underscored judicial commitment to practical realities over rigid legalism.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i) Thakur Amarsinghji v. State of Rajasthan, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 303
ii) Thakur Raghubir Singh and Others v. State of Ajmer (1959 Supp. SCR 478)
b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955
ii) Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950
iii) Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877
iv) Constitution of India, 1950
