RAM CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these five Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 762 to 765 and 767 of 1970) arise out of common judgment of a learned Single Judge, dated November 26, 1970, whereby five writ petitions of the respective Appellants principally impugning the validity and constitutionality of Section 6 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act (38 of 1949)(introduced by Section 2 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 24 of 1957, into the 1949 Act as amended up to that time) were dismissed. The facts of only one of these cases (L.P.A. 762 of 1970) may be noticed as there is no material difference between those facts and the history of the other four cases so far as the same are relevant for deciding the points argued before us.

(2.) THE Collector, Karnal, gave ten acres of Banjar land (of which he had taken possession under Section 3 of the Act) on lease for twenty years to Ram Chand Appellant on August 31, 1954, at the rate of Rs. 3 per acre per annum. This lease was given under Section 5 of the Act. Copy of the instrument of lease is Annexure R/1 to the written statement of the Respondents. Conditions Nos. 1 and 2 of the lease provided that the rent of the land for the first year was to be paid by January 25, 1955, and the rent of the subsequent years was payable on the 15th of January each year; the rent of the last two years of the lease being payable in advance. The lessee was not to assign; transfer; mortgage or sublet the land (condition No. 6). The seventh covenant stated that the lessee shall use his land only for the purpose of sowing food and fodder crops and for no other purpose. The lessee was to reclaim and bring under cultivation half of the leased land by May 23, 1955 and the remaining half by February 23, 1956 (condition No. 8). The ninth term of the lease required the lessee to deposit with the Collector at the commencement of the lease a stipulated amount as security for due observance and faithful performance of the condition of the lease. Conditions Nos. 11, 15 and 16 of the lease were in the following terms:

(3.) THE writ petition was contested by the Respondents on whose behalf an affidavit of Shri Ram Narain Singh, S.D.O., (Civil) -cum -Collector, Kaithal, was filed accompanied by the annexures to which reference has already been made. Annexure R/4 was attached to the return to show that the Collector, Karnal, had delegated all the powers of the Collector vested in him under the Act to all the Sub -Divisional Officers (Civil) in Karnal district in exercise of the Collector's power of delegation under Section 12 of the Act. Certain amendments made to the Act after the filing of the writ petition will be referred to while giving the history of the relevant legislation. By his judgment, dated November 26, 1970, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It appears to be necessary to set out at this stage the history of the relevant legislation with which the learned Single Judge had to deal in all these cases.