VINOD KUMAR SHRI DURGA DUTTA GUR SINGH MST ANAR DEVI KARAM SINGH DEEP RAM KHUSHI RAM ISHWAR SINGH SHRIMATI GAUARI DEVI SHRAWAN KUMAR BHAGIRATH SURAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By each of these 32 petitions under Art. 32 of our Constitution, which have been heard together, the respective petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Himachal 15 of 1954) which is said to have been passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh created by the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act (32 of 1954).

(2.) On November 23, 1954, the President of India gave his assent to the Bill which on being so assented to become the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act 1953, (Himachal 15 of 1954) (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). On January 26, 1955, this Abolition Act was brought into force by a notification issued under S. 1 (3) thereof. It will be convenient it this stage to refer to some of the relevant sections of the Abolition Act. Section 11 confers a new right on the tenants to acquire the interests of the land-owners. According to this section notwithstanding any law, custom, or contract to the contrary a tenant other than a sub-tenant shall, on application made to the compensation officer at any time after the commencement of the Act, be entitled to acquire, on payment of compensation, the right, title and interest of the landowner in the land of the tenancy held by him under the landowner subject to certain terms and conditions therein mentioned. Section 14 permits the acquisition by the tenant of the rights of the landowner in a portion of the lands of the tenancy in certain specified circumstances on the surrender of the rest of the lands. Section 15 sanctions the acquisition by the State Government of the rights of the landowners by notification in the Gazette declaring that, as from such date and in respect of such area as may be specified in the notification, the right, title and interest of the landowner in the lands of any tenancy held under him by a tenant shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances created in such lands by the landowner. Section 16 provides for the payment to the landowner, whose right, title and interest in lands, would be acquired by the State Government under S. 15, of compensation to be calculated, as far as practicable, according to the provisions of Ss. 12 and 13. Section 27 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the foregoing sections of that Chapter, a landowner who holds land, 'the annual land revenue of which exceeds Rs. 125 per year, the right, title and interest of such owner in such land shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of this section lays down that the landowner whose right is acquired under sub-s. (1) by the State Government, shall be entitled to receive compensation which shall be determined by the Compensation Officer having regard to Ss. 17 and 18 of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule II, but in the case of such occupancy tenant who is liable to pay rent in terms of land revenue or the multiple of land revenue, the compensation payable to his landowner shall be computed in accordance with Schedule I. The compensation provided in Schedule II to the Abolition Act may in certain cases work out to no more than twice the land revenue. Section 39 fixes the maximum rent at one fourth of the crop which, it is apprehended may not even cover the land revenue and the local rates and cesses. Section 80 provides for the State management of lands in certain cases therein mentioned. It is not necessary for our present purpose to refer to any of the other provisions of the Abolition Act.

(3.) On a cursory perusal of the foregoing sections one may well understand the natural apprehension of the landowners that the provisions thereof are much too drastic and are inconsistent with and take away or at any rate substantially abridge the right to their respective properties conferred on and guaranteed to them by Part III of our Constitution and thereby infringe the provisions of Arts.14,19 or 31. It is, therefore, not surprising that the petitioners in all these petitions, all of whom are landowners, have moved this Court by separate petitions under Art. 32 for the enforcement of their fundamental rights to their respective properties. In each of the several petitions which have been heard together two broad points have been taken, namely :-