SURJIT SINGH ATWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are displaced land owners from West Pakistan and have settled in village Behram. district Jullundur, where they have been allotted evacuee land in lieu of the land left by them in Pakistan. The consolidation of holdings was introduced in this village in 1954 and a draft scheme was drawn up by the Consolidation Officer and confirmed by the Settlement Officer sometime in January, 1055. The scheme provided that in case of displaced, persons who had been allotted evacuee land the value of their holdings would be out in a common pool of all the displaced allottees and then distributed amongst them in accordance with their original shares in standard acres. The provisions o[ this scheme were challenged in a large number of writ petitions which were allowed. In the meantime, the Puniab Consolidation of Land Proceedings (Validation) Act (No. 6 of 1957) was passed At the stage of the Letters Patent Appeal, validity of this Act was also challenged. It was held by the Full Bench in State of Puniab v. S. Kehar Singh. AIR 1959 Punj 8 (FE) as under :-The Act falls within the rule that a legislature cannot take what might be termed a natural class of persons, split that class in two and then arbitrarily designate the dis-severed factions of the original unit as two classes. Proprietary rights were conferred on all allottees of evacuee lands irrespective of the date of publication of consolidation schemes and thus they all form one class. That class has been split into two by Putting those with regard to whom the consolidation schemes were published between 31-12-1951 and 1-1-1956 into one class and those in whose cases the schemes were published after 1-1-1956. That is clearlv an arbitrary wav of designating the dis-sever-ed factions of the original unit as two classes and having two sets of laws. In case of former class, the Act extinguishes and modifies their rights in accordance with Section 4. whereas in case of the latter class, no such extinguishment and modification is to take place. Such a classification is based only on the difference in date or dates of publication of the consolidation schemes and therefore cannot be held to be anything but unreasonable and arbitrary. The classification cannot be justified on the ground that there has been segregation in classes which have a systematic relation usually found in common properties and characteristics. "

(2.) THE State of Puniab challenged the decision rendered by the Full Bench in an appeal before the Supreme Court which was allowed (State of Puniab v. Kehar Singh. Civil Appeals Nos 116 to 119 of 1965 decided on March 31. 1967) The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Puniab Consolidation of Land Proceedings (Validation) Act (No. 6 of 19571. In the meantime. Civil Writ No. 612 of 1956. (Gulwant Singh v. State of Puniab) filed by the petitioners was also allowed by this Court on May 13, 1958. and the State of Puniab went in appeal to challenge the correctness of the decision rendered in this case. This appeal was dismissed on February 11. 1970. as having abated in the Supreme Court. The petitioners insisted that since the State ad-peal had been dismissed as having been abated in the Supreme Court, due effect should be given to the judgment rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in their cases. They also instituted contempt of Court proceedings in which some action was taken against the Secretary to the Government as well as the Director of Consolidation of Holdings. Faced with this situation, the State of Puniab passed the Puniab Consolidation of Land Proceedings (Validation) Act. 1972. The preamble of the Act shows that it had been passed to undo the effect of some decisions rendered by this Court, by which the Punjab Consolidation of Land Proceedings (Validation) Act. 1957. had been struck down and in which either appeals were not filed in the Supreme Court or the appeals filed in the said Court had abated. Section 2 of the Act reads as under:- a name="2 Validation of certain consolidation proceedings: Notwithstanding anv judg-ment decree or order of anv Court, other than the Supreme Court of India, no scheme published under Section 19 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 between 31st day of December 1951 and the 1st dav of Januarv 1956, in respect of land of an evacuee forming part of an estate or estates and no subsequent proceedings taken in relation thereto shall be and shall be deemed ever to have been invalid merely by reason of the fact that the Punjab Consolidation of Land Proceedings (Validation) Act 1957 by which the said schemes and proceedings were validated, had been declared by anv Court not being the Supreme Court of India, to be invalid" class= "2 Validation of certain consolidation proceedings: Notwithstanding anv judg-ment decree or order of anv Court, other than the Supreme Court of India, no scheme published under Section 19 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 between 31st day of December 1951 and the 1st dav of Januarv 1956, in respect of land of an evacuee forming part of an estate or estates and no subsequent proceedings taken in relation thereto shall be and shall be deemed ever to have been invalid merely by reason of the fact that the Punjab Consolidation of Land Proceedings (Validation) Act 1957 by which the said schemes and proceedings were validated, had been declared by anv Court not being the Supreme Court of India, to be invalid"

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the Validation Act. namelv. the Punjab Act No. 4 of 1972, itself is unconstitutional inasmuch as it has the effect of undoing the effect of Judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. Secondly, it is urged that the case of the petitioners is not covered by Section 2 of the Validation Act. Because of the abatement of the Government appeal in the Supreme Court, the iudgments of the High Court in favour of the petitioners would be deemed to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court and the validation clause leaves the Iudgments of the Supreme Court untouched. There is no merit in either of these two submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.