S SHIVDEV SINGH KRISHAN KUMAR KHOSLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB IN BOTH PETITIONS :STATE OF PUNJAB IN BOTH PETITIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :

(2.) THESE two petitions raise a question as to the validiy and constitutionality of r. 31 framed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act No. 13 of 1955) as amended by Pepsu Act No. 15 of 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and will be dealt with together. The attack on the rule is practically similar in the two petitions and therefore we shall only give the facts in Petition No. 261 to understand the nature of the attack. The petitioners in Petition No. 261 are landowners in village Dhamo Majra, District Patiala, in the State of Punjab. They are running an agricultural farm on a mechanised scale and the area of the farm measures 421 acres. This area is a compact block of land and it is said that some part of the area is potentially of high productivity whereas other area is of inferior quality and less productive capacity by reason of the presence of alkaline patches of soil therein. The land was originally scrub jungle and was uneven and extensive reclamation was carried on by the petitioners at heavy cost. They spent a large amount far terracing and leveling the land, constructing bundhs, water channels, approach roads and in standardising the area of the fields. Two wells were constructed for providing irrigational facilities and the petitioners have their own electric substation for the purpose. They have also constructed manure pits and have made permanent structural improvements in the shape of construction of roads, servant quarters, tractor sheds, cattle-sheds and stores, and have in all incurred expenses over rupees three lacs for all these purposes. The petitioners are carrying on farming on the basis of scientific cultivation practices, sowing practices and manure practices and because of the use of modern technique the overall yield per acre is very high keeping in view the fertility and nature of the soil.

(3.) THIS in brief is the scheme of Act and r.32 framed thereunder. The petitioners' case is that the Commission is inquiring into the petitioners' claim of exemption under s. 32 K (1) (iv) of the Act and in doing so it is bound to follow the requirements of r.31 in addition to the fulfillment of the conditions in cl. (iv) of s.32-K (1). The petitioners contend that the standards of yields prescribed in sch. under r. 31 are arbitrary, obnoxious, unreasonable, hypothetical, completely unrealistic and unattainable in any modern farm and are repugnant to the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that the system of marking which has been evolved under r. 31 is completely alien and foreign to the Act. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners on the observations of the Sub Committee set up by the planning Commission on the problems of Re-organisation, panel on land Reforms for the purpose of suggesting standards of efficient cultivation and management and sanctions for the enforcement of standards, when it said that though `an obvious test of good husbandry may appear to be thecomparative yield of crops, or the gross produce per acre`, the Sub-Committee was of the opinion for various reasons which it mentioned that ',the yield varied with a number of factors whose effects cannot be measured quantitatively, such as location the fertility and texture of the soil, the vagaries of the climate, the incidence of epidemics etc. which are beyond the control of the farmer`. The SubCommittee was therefore not prepared to apply the test of yield as the sole test of good husbandry. The petitioners further allege that the yield fixed by Sch. C showed great disparity between it and the actual average produce par acre for different crops in different States of India and in different districts of Pepsu, and obviously results in discrimination. It is also urged that the standards fixed by Sch. C were unattainable and therefore the petitioners' claim for exemption under a. 32 K (1) (iv) would be seriously jeopardized if r. 31 is applied. It is contended that the rule goes beyond the power conferred on the State government under a. 32 K and was therefore ultra vires the Act. Further, it is urged that r. 31 along with the two Schedules was a colourable piece of legislation and the object of framing it was to defeat the purpose of the Act with the intention of seeing that no exemption may be granted even though the legislature intended under s. 32 K (1) (iv) to grant exemption to efficiently managed farms. It is also urged that by making r. 31, the State has fettered the judgment and discretion of the Commission which it could not do under the Act. The petitioners therefore pray that r. 31 should be struck down as ultra vires of the Act and also as unconstitutional and the respondents should be directred not to give effect to r. 31.