DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Pepsu Land Commission refusing to exempt the petitioner's land in dispute from ceiling on the ground that it does not constitute an efficiently managed farm under Section 32-K(1)(iv) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The principal ground urged in the petition is that Rule 31 of the Rules framed under the Act was ultra vires. The Commission, while refusing to declare the farm as an efficiently managed farm proceeded on the basis of Rule 31. This Rule fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1963 AIR(SC) 365 , and their Lordships of the Supreme Court declared the rule to be ultra vires of the Act. The Punjab Legislature thereafter amended the Act. The amendment was made by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act 27 of 1962. By Section 5 of this Act, sub-section (3) has been added to Section 32-K. This sub-section in some measure replaces Rule 31, but it is not identical with Rule 31. The new sub-section has been made retrospective by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of Act 27 of 1962. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the change in law he is entitled to get his claim to exemption reconsidered under the amended provision and, therefore, this petition should be allowed and the order of the Commission quashed with a direction that they should examine the petitioner's case in the light of the new provisions introduced by the Amendment Act. Mr. Kawatra, who appears for the State, opposes this request on the ground that the Commission did take into account Rule 31. In my view, taking into account Rule 31 will be of no material consequence in refusing the prayer of the petitioner. Rule 31 has been declared ultra vires and any decision on its basis would suffer from the initial infirmity, namely, that it is a decision arrived at on an illegal provision. That being so, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the matter should be re-examined in view of the amended provision, is sound and must prevail. I accordingly allow this petition, quash the order of the Pepsu Land Commission and direct that the Commission should re-examine the petitioner's case in the light of the amended provision. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.