Nathudan vs State of Rajasthan

Jagat Narayan, J.—This is a reference by the Munsif, Jalore u/s 113, C. P. C.

One Nathudan filed an application before him u/s 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, u/s 4(j) of the Act, the provisions of which are not applicable to "any other sum of money due to 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.

The learned Advocate General concedes that it is so hit.

In Mukanchand v. Inder Singh ILR (1959) 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 Vs. Mukanchand and Others, 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 on his 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 from others 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 clearly not been satisfied in this case. The object sought to be achieved by the impugned Act was to reduce the debts secured on jagir lands which had been resumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. The Jagirdar''s capacity to pay debts had been reduced by the resumption of his lands and the object of the Act was to ameliorate his condition. The fact that the debts are owed to a government or local authority or other bodies mentioned in the impugned part of Section 2(e) has no rational relation ship with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. Further, no intelligible principle underlies the exempted categories of debts."

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".

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