PALA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of four petitions (Nos. 877 and 892 of 1966, and nos. 1115 and 1879 of 1967) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by various petitioners. These petitions have been taken together because there is one common question raised with regard to the validity and vires of Sub-section (1) of section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948 ).

(2.) THE particular sub-section reads --14. (1) With the object of consolidating holdings in any estate or group of estates or any part thereof for the purpose of better cultivation of lands therein the State Government may of its own motion or on application made in this behalf declare by notification and by publication in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of holdings in such estate or estates or part thereof as may be specified". In the village of the petitioner in each one of these petitions notification for consolidation of holdings under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 has been issued. In jagir Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1963) 65 Pun LR 754 = (AIR 1964 Pun 90), a division Bench consisting of Capoor and Pandit JJ. , held that the State government in making such a notification acts in a purely administrative capacity and so the question of hearing the right-holders of the particular village with regard to which such a notification has been issued oannot possibly arise. Subsequent to the decision in Jagir Singh's case, (1963) 65 Pun Lr 754 (AIR 1964 punj 90), some petitions were admitted in which the validity and the vires of Subsection (1) of Section 14 was challenged. Some of those petitions came for hearing before a Bench consisting of Harbans Singh and Mahajan JJ. , and myself in Gurdial Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1967) 69 Pun LR 689 - (AIR 1968 Punj 267), but the cases considered at that time were disposed of on different grounds and this matter was not decided. It has been raised in these four petitions again and because this was a matter before a larger Bench on the earlier occasion and because in Jagir Singh's case, (1963) 65 Pun LR 754 = (AIR 1964 Punj 90), a division Bench has given answer on this question against the petitioners, so this bench was constituted to hear these petitions.

(3.) IN Roop Chand v. The State of Punjab, (1963) 65 Pun LR 576 = (AIR 1963 SC 1503), their Lordships held, as appears from Paragraph 21 of the report, that in consequence of consolidation of holdings under the provisions of the Act a rightholder's original right to his land may disappear with the inevitable result that an order in consequence of which that happens affects his right to property illegally, in other words, such an order affects his fundamental right to hold property. This their Lordships observed in answer to an argument that the petition before them was not competent under Article 32 of the Constitution as the impugned order did not affect the fundamental right of the petitioner in that case. Although there is no particular reference in this connection to Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, but as the observation of their Lordships has specific reference to the holding of the right-holder before consolidation and the holding being taken away from him in consequence of consolidation in substitution for another holding that he may be given, it is immediately clear that the observation can only possibly have reference to Article 19 (1) (f) and no other Article In Jagat Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Punj 221, a Full Bench of this Court held that East Punjab Act 50 of 1948 being a legislation of agrarian reforms is a valid piece of legislation and not unconstitutional being immune from attack by virtue of Article 31-A of the constitution. This decision of the Full Bench of this Court was maintained and approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. The State of punjab, AIR 1965 SC 632. The provisions of the Act have thus been held to be within scope of Article 31-A of the Constitution and hence immune from attack under Article 19, and same would be the position with regard to Articles 14 and 81, as is clear from Article 31-A (1 ). The observations of their Lordships in Roop chand's case, (1963) 65 Pun LR 576 = (AIR 1963 SC 1503), have to be considered along with the later decision in Ranjit Singh's case, AIR 1965 SC 632, of which the consequence is that an argument under Article 19 (1) (f) or Article 14 of the Constitution against the constitutional vires of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act is not available to the petitioners in these petitions.