- (1.) JUDGEMENT This writ petition which has been filed on behalf of Baldeo Singh, Mamraj Singh and Smt. Triveni is directed against the land acquisition proceedings pending in respect of a plot of land which is covered by Leeche and mango trees and forms an orchard. The notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the U.P. Gazette dated November 17, 1962. In this notification there is also a reference to a direction made by the State Government applying the provisions of S. 17(1) of the Act and rendering the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act inapplicable. That part of the notification reads :- "The Governor being of the opinion that the provisions of Sub-S. (1) of S. 17 of the said Act are applicable to the said Section to direct that the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act shall not apply."
(2.) THE composite notification under Ss. 4 and 17, mentioned above, is dated October 22, 1962. This was followed by a notification dated November 17, 1962, under S. 6 of the Act which was published in the State Gazette dated November 24, 1962. In the composite notification under S. 4 read with S. 17(1) of the Act referred to above, the purpose for which land is acquired has been stated as follows :- "Required by Headquarters Bengal Engineering Group and Centre for opening a Childrens school". In the notification under S. 6 of the Act, the same purpose is mentioned. Mr. V.K.S. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has challenged the validity of the composite notification under Ss. 4 and 17 as also under S. 6 of the Act on the following five grounds :- 1. That the notification under S. 17(4) is invalid in so far as the land in dispute is an orchard which cannot be comprehended either by the expression waste land or by the expression arable land with the result the proceeding under S. 17 of the Act cannot be taken in respect of this plot. 2. That the provisions of S. 17(4) of the Act are invalid on the ground of being violative, firstly of Art. 14 and secondly of Art. 19 of the Constitution. It is also contended that there has been an excessive delegation of essential legislative functions in favour of the appropriate Government in so far as they have been given a power to set at naught the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act. 3. That the combined notification under Ss. 4 and 17 of the Act is invalid. 4. That the impugned notification under S. 6 is invalid on the ground that it was issued the same day on which the notification under S. 4 was published in the State Gazette. 5. That there has been a clear fraud on the statute or colourable exercise of power by the State Government in so far that they have pretended to acquire the land for "Headquarters Bengal Engineer Group and Centre for opening a Childrens school," in order to bye-pass the provisions of Ss. 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the Act. No other submission has been made before me. I will take the submissions seriatim. Mr. Chaudhary contends that S. 17(1) provides that only in case of a waste or arable land can the powers under that Section be exercised. He reads waste to mean barren and arable as capable of cultivation but not under actual cultivation. It is not necessary to dilate on the point because the argument is fully met by Sub-S. (3) of S. 17 which reads :- "In every case under either of the preceding Sub-Sections the Collector shall at the time of taking possession offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crops and trees (if any) on such land and for any other damage sustained by them-caused by such sudden dispossession and not accepted in S. 24; and, in case such offer is not accepted, the value of such crops and trees and the amount of such other damage shall be allowed for in awarding compensation for me land under the provisions herein contained." This Sub-Section clearly contemplates a notification, in respect of the land covered by trees and crops also. It is, therefore, obvious that the Legislature: never used the words waste and arable land in the sense in which Mr. Chaudhry is seeking to read them. If the idea was that only barren and uncovered land was to be acquired, any provision for paying compensation in respect of the trees and crops would be meaningless and redundant and redundancy and meaninglessness cannot be attributed to the Legislature easily. Apart from it, the word waste does not mean barren nor does the word arable connote capable of cultivation but not under actual cultivation. Arable only means cultivable which means either cultivated or capable or being cultivated. Therefore, neither do the meaning of the words waste or arable nor the context in which they have been used support the submission of Mr. Chaudhry. In fact, both of them militate against the submission made by him. I, therefore, overrule the first submission of the learned counsel.
(3.) SO far as the second submission of the learned counsel is concerned, it is difficult to see how S. 17(1) can be held to be violative of Art. 14. The only submission that Mr. Chaudhry made in this respect was that it is so because the State Government has been given power to decide the matter subjectively and has been provided with no principles on the basis of which to exercise the power. In my judgment, the submission is not correct. The words used are not in the opinion of the Government but in cases of urgency with the result that the policy of law and legal principles have been provided for by the Legislature. The statute having provided the policy of law and the legal principles having been enacted by the Legislature itself, it cannot be said that there has been any delegation of essential Legislative functions. The question of urgency has got to be decided objectively and has not been left to the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government. It is, therefore, clear that S. 17 of the Act is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The applicability of Art. 19 is drawn by submitting that the right to own and enjoy property has been affected. The submission is fully met by the circumstance that the right to own property is subject to the laws made by the State. Clause 5 of Art. 19 reads :- "Nothing in sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said, sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe." ;