S PRITAM SINGH CHAHIL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the provisions of Sections 32-A, 32-D, 32-E, 32-FF and 32-G of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953, as amended by Act XV of 1956, hereinafter called the Act, are illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and for a declaration that the provisions of Rule 28 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, hereinafter called the Rules, are illegal and void, and for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from his land under the provisions thereof.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated:The petitioner owned land measuring about 284 bighas situated in village Narinderpura. In the year 1956 he transferred one half of the said land in favour of his wife Shrimati Charanjeet Kaur. Excluding the land so transferred, the land remaining in the hands of the petitioner is admittedly below the ceiling prescribed under the Act. On October 30, 1956, Act XV of 1956 was passed by the Legislature of the Patiala and East Punjab Union. It amended the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. By the amendment Chapter 4-A was added to the earlier Act and also a ceiling was imposed on land under personal cultivation. The petitioner is admittedly in personal cultivation of his land, which, excluding that sold to his wife, is below the ceiling prescribed under the Act. On January 14, 1959 the Punjab Legislature passed Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Amendment) Act, 1959, (Act III of 1959). Under the said amending Act, no transfer or other disposition of land effected after August 21, 1956, except in favour of persons mentioned thereunder, shall affect the right of the State Government under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer or disposition. Relying upon that section and including in the total area held by the petitioner the land transferred by him in favour of his wife, the Special Collector, Chandigarh. on May 31, 1962, served a draft statement on the petitioner holding that certain extent of land was surplus area. The petitioner, questioning the order of the Collector on various grounds, filed this petition for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised before us the following three points:(1) The provisions of Ss. 32-A, 32-D, 32-E, 32-FF, 32-G and 32-P of the Act are inconsistent with the second proviso to Art. 31-A of the Constitution; (2) the provisions of S. 32-FF, read with R. 23-A of the Rules, amount to delegation of legislative power and (3) the provisions of R. 28 of the Rules are inconsistent with the provisions of S. 32-G of the Act and therefore Art. 31-A is not a bar against the enforcement of the petitioner's fundamental right under Arts. 19, 13 (2) and 14 of the Constitution.