SOHAN SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petition Nos. 1603, 2345, 2353, 2368 to 2373, 2573, 2575, 3208, 5666 to 5668, 6319, 6352, 6890 and 6891 of 1976, common question of law has been raised. It is canvassed that Rules 8, 9, 10 and Schedule 'A' of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1973 , are ultra vires of Section 4(2)(d)(i) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) In these petitions, mostly the lands are irrigated by Shah Nahar or Kuhls. It was contended that in Shah Nahar and Kuhls, there is no scale by which its projected intensity can be measured and to this extent the inclusion of Shah Nahar and the Kuhls in the Schedule 'A' goes against the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, because there is no assured irrigation and it is beyond the rule making power of the State.

(3.) All these petitions arise out of the surplus area proceedings taken under the Act against the petitioners. Various points are raised in these petitions, but it was fairly conceded by the counsel for the parties that most of these points are resolved by a Full Bench authority of this Court reported as (Jaswant Kaur and another v. State of Haryana, 1977 PunLJ 230) and the arguments are confined only, at present to the vires of Rules 8, 9, 10 and Schedule 'A'. Section 4(2) of the Act is in the following terms :-