MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these four writ petitions i.e., C. W. P. Nos. 4351 to 4354 of 1973, which were referred by me vide my order dated 24th Feb, 1982, to a larger Bench, the constitutionality of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972(Punjab Act No. 10 of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the 'Reforms Act' has been challenged on the ground that the Reforms Act has not exempted the land from its operation which was allotted to the ancestors of the petitioners as gallantry award in recognition of the service rendered in war and that grant of such gallantry award and all matters connected therewith, including the purpose for which these awards are given are directly connected with the defence of the country which is a subject on which only the Parliament of India can legislate and not the State Legislature. Thus, the question which arises for determination is, whether the Punjab Legislative Assembly was competent to enact the Reforms Act relating to the gallantry award lands or was it within the legislative competence of the Parliament of India. It is true that under Ss. 19-D and 19DD of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which is repealed, the gallantry award land was exempted, gallantry award land was exempting, but under the reforms Act the same is not exempted.

(2.) Mr. G. S. Chawla, learned counsel for the State, raised a preliminary objection that the Reforms Act is agrarian law and its provisions are protected from invalidation under Arts. 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution of India as it is included in the Ninth Schedule thereof and its provisions are intra vires of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court authorities reported as Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 915, and Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 2097. Admittedly, the Reforms ACT s included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and it is protected from invalidation under Arts. 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution, but the argument of Mr. H. S. Wasu, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that he does not challenge the validity of the Reforms Act on the ground of its infringement of any of the Art. 14 or Art. 19 of the Constitution but on the ground of competency of the Punjab State Legislative Assembly, Since the validity of the Reforms Act is not challenged on the ground of infringement of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution, I am of the view that its validity can be challenged on the ground of legislative competency of the State legislature. Thus, the preliminary objection of Mr. Chawla being meritless is overruled.

(3.) The argument of Mr. Wasu learned counsel for the petitioner, so far a the legislative competency of the State Legislature on the subject is concerned. Is based on Items Nos 1 and 2 of List I (Union List) of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which read as follows :--