SAROJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), received the assesent of the President of India on Dec. 22. 1972, and as published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated December 23, 1972. on which date it came into force. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Act, the Governor of Haryana, by notification No G. S. R. 99/h. A. 26/72/ S. 31/73 dated August 28, 1973. promulgated the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called the Rules), to carry out the objects of the Act. A number of landowners have filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Act and the Rules, out of which 172 petitions have been placed before us for decision. This order will dispose of all those writ petitions. (Petition numbers omitted-Ed.)

(2.) THE preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to ceiling on land holdings in the State of Haryana and the statement of objects and reasons reads as under:-

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners have not challenged that the provisions of the Act, except those which are being declared ultra vires in the later part of this judgment, pertain to agrarian reforms and give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. This matter was dealt with in detail by a Full Bench of this Court, of which one pf us was a member, in Sucha Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab. ILR (1974) 1 Punj and Har 575 = (AIR 1974 Punj and Har 162) (FB), and it was held that the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, which pertained to agrarian reforms and gave effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India, were immune from attack on the ground that they took away or abridged any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The statement of objects and reasons and most of the provisions of the Act, being similar to those of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, that judgment applies with full force to the Act and the learned counsel for the petitioners have not urged anything to the contrary. So we will proceed on the same basis while considering the provisions of the Act under challenge in these petitions.