Nathudan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Nathudan vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 22, 1964

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/754227

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/754227
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Jagat Narayan, J.
Decided On: Jul 22, 1964
Case Number: Civil Ref. No. 24 of 1962
Subject: Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - It is now well settled that in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentiation which distinguishes persons or things that are to be put together fromothers left out of the group, and (...

Key legal issue: Commercial
Acts & sections: Debt Law; Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 - Sections 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nathudan

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate G.C. Kasliwal, Adv. General

Legal References

Acts: Debt Law; Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 - Sections 4
Cases Referred: Supreme Court (State of Rajasthan v. Mukanchand
Reported In: AIR1964Raj274

Excerpt

- - it is now well settled that in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentiation which distinguishes persons or things that are to be put together fromothers left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 2 above has clearlynot been satisfied in this case......classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentiation which distinguishes persons or things that are to be put together fromothers left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. in our opinion, condition no. 2 above has clearlynot been satisfied in this case. the object soughtto be achieved by the impugned act was to reducethe debts secured on jagir lands which had beenresumed under the provisions of the rajasthan landreforms and resumption of jagirs act. thejagirdar's capacity to pay debts had been reducedby the resumption of his lands and the object ofthe act was to ameliorate his condition. the factthat the debts are owed to a government or localauthority or other bodies mentioned in the impugned part of section 2(e) has no rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved by theact. further, no intelligible principle underliesthe exempted categories of debts.' 5. the above observations are equally applicable to the part of section 4(3) of the rajasthan relief of agricultural indebtedness act namely 'any other sum of money due to government by way of or towards payment of a loan'.6. the reference is answered as indicated above. let the record be returned to munsif, jalore, so that the suit may be disposed of expeditiously.

Full Judgment

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a reference by the Munsif, Jalore under Section 113, C. P. C.

2. One Nathudan filed an application before him under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief oi Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, for determination of his 'debt'. His liabilities include some loan made to him by the State Government, under Section 4(j) of the Act, the provisions of which are not applicable to 'any other sum of money dueto Government by way of or towards payment of a loan'. It is contended that this provision is void as it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. The learned Advocate General concedes that it is so hit.

4. In Mukanchand v. Inder Singh, ILR (1959)9 Raj 547 a Division Bench of this Court held that Section 2(e) of the Rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Deduction Act was hit by Article 14 of the. Constitution. This part of the judgment was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court (State of Rajasthan v. Mukanchand, Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1061 D/- 26-2-64 : (AIR 1964 SC 1633) ). Section 2 (e) of that Act ran as follows:

''Debt' means an advance in cash or in kind and includes any transaction which is in substance a debt but does not include an advance as aforesaid made on or after the first day of January 1949 or a debt due to:

(i) the Central Government or Government of any State;

(ii) a local authority;

(iii) a scheduled bank;

(iv) a co-operative society; and

(v) a waqf, trust or endowment for a charitable or religious purpose only; or (vi) a person where the debt was advanced onhis behalf by the Court of Wards.'

Confirming the judgment of the High Court then Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:

'We think that the High Court was right in I holding that the impugned part of Section 2(e) infringes Article 14 of the Constitution. It is now well settled that in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentiation which distinguishes persons or things that are to be put together fromothers left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In our opinion, condition No. 2 above has clearlynot been satisfied in this case. The object soughtto be achieved by the impugned Act was to reducethe debts secured on jagir lands which had beenresumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan LandReforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. TheJagirdar's capacity to pay debts had been reducedby the resumption of his lands and the object ofthe Act was to ameliorate his condition. The factthat the debts are owed to a government or localauthority or other bodies mentioned in the impugned part of Section 2(e) has no rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved by theAct. Further, no intelligible principle underliesthe exempted categories of debts.'

5. The above observations are equally applicable to the part of Section 4(3) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act namely 'any other sum of money due to Government by way of or towards payment of a loan'.

6. The reference is answered as indicated above. Let the record be returned to Munsif, Jalore, so that the suit may be disposed of expeditiously.

Same Parties Nathudan vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Commercial Same Judge Jagat Narayan, J. Acts & Sections Debt Law; Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, ...

Commercial