GURU AMARJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Guru Amarjit Singh against the Punjab State, Respondent No. 1, and Tehsildar, Jullundur, Respondent No. 2, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of Section 3 and the Schedule of the Punjab Land Revenue (Special Charges) Act (Punjab Act 6 of 1958) and Section 12 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punjab Act 10 of 1953).

(2.) THE Petitioner is a big land -owner and possesses landed property in villages Kartarpur, Dhirpur, Shivdaspur, Ramsinghpura, Chak Ramsinghpura, Meer Chhota and Dayalpur in district Jullundur. The total area owned by him is 34,522 kanals 2 marlas. The major portion of the land, that is, 27,768 kanals 17 marlas is in village Kartarpur alone. According to the Petitioner, the land in the other villages, except Kartarpur, is with the tenants. In Kartarpur, 18,496 kanals is with tenants, 7,604 kanals and 5 marlas is ban jar, 929 kanals and 7 marlas is under an orchard and the remaining land is under a farm made by the Petitioner. The estate of the Petitioner had been under the management of the Court of Wards from 1908 to 1922 and from 1928 to 1952. During this period, the rent payable by the tenants used to be fixed by the Manager of the Court of Wards, who was under the control of the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur. The rent fixed by the Manager was in cash and at very low rates. According to the Petitioner, this rent was fixed somewhere in 1908 and the same was being paid up till today. This rent was much below one -third of the normal produce of the land and the same, according to him, could not be raised in view of the provisions of Section 12 of Punjab Act No. 10 of 1953. In 1954 another Act called the Punjab Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act (Act 36 of 1954) was enacted, by virtue of which a surcharge on the land revenue was levied with effect from the rabi harvest of the agricultural year 1953 -54. In 1958, the Punjab Land Revenue (Special Charges) Act (Punjab Act 6 of 1958) was passed. Under this Act, a landowner, who was liable to pay more than Rs. 50 as land revenue, which included the surcharge leviable under Punjab Act 36 of 1954, had to pay a special charge, according to the Schedule given in this Act. The Petitioner who used to pay land revenue exceeding Rs. 1,000 annually, was covered by Clause (e) of this Schedule. In addition to the land revenue, the surcharge and the special charge, the Petitioner had to pay local rates. According to the Petitioner, the total demand of the Government from rabi 1958 to rabi 1960, regarding all these villages was Rs. 65,573.39 nP., while his income was Rs. 38,480.96 nP. The result was that he was being put to a loss of Rs. 27,092.43 nP., as shown in annexure 'D' of his petition. The Petitioner had been paying the land revenue, the local rates and the surcharge regularly and had no grievance so far as these dues were concerned. On 21st December, 1960 Respondent No. 2, exercising powers under Punjab Act No. 6 of 1958, made a demand of Rs. 49,031.98 nP., on account of special charge from rabi 1958 to 1960 from the Petitioner and the revenue authorities were threatening to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue by coercive methods. According to the Petitioner, he was not entitled to receive even one -third of the produce of the land as rent from his tenants, as they had been paying him much less before the enactment of Section 12 of Punjab Act No. 10 of 1953, but, on the other hand, he was being forced to pay the special charge. This has led to the filing of the present petition. The Punjab State has filed a written statement, in which it is mentioned that the estate in question remained under the Court of Wards from 1908 to 1923 and again from 1929 to 1951. The rent was fixed by the Manager of the Court of Wards and if the Petitioner was not satisfied with the performance of the duties by the Manager, he could make a representation to the authorities concerned. Moreover, the estate was finally released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards, with effect from 24th June, 1961. If the Petitioner was not satisfied with the quantum of rent, which remained in force during the Court of Wards period, he could apply for the enhancement of the same before the revenue authorities, as there was no restriction imposed on him. The written statement further shows that the figures given by the Petitioner regarding the loss in all the villages, except Kartarpur, were substantially correct. As regards Kartarpur, since a part of the land there was under self -cultivation of the Petitioner and part of it was under an orchard, the income from the land, as given by the Petitioner, was denied for want of knowledge and the Punjab State gave its own figures regarding the same, which showed that the loss from Kartarpur land was considerably less than what was stated in the petition. It was also asserted in the return that Section 12 of Punjab Act No. 10 of 1953 and Section 3 and the Schedule of Punjab Act No. 6 of 1958, which run as under, were perfectly valid - -

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the above provisions on the ground that the amount payable by his client towards the land revenue, local rates, surcharge and special charge exceeded the income of the land, with the result that the entire landed property of the Petitioner was being virtually appropriated without payment of any compensation. Under Section 12 of Punjab Act, No. 10 of 1953, the Petitioner could not recover even one -third of the crop or the value thereof because, according to the learned Counsel, the customary rent of this estate varied from Re. 0 -4 -0 to Re. 1 per kanal of barani land and Rs. 2 to Rs. 3 perennial of the chahi land and the same was being paid by the tenants from 1908 onwards, when this property was under the management of the Court of Wards. Learned Counsel, however, conceded that if his client could get rent up to one -third of the crop or the value thereof, then the amount of the land revenue, local rates, surcharge and special charge would not exceed the income of the land and in that case the impugned provisions could not be challenged.