Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS and the two companion writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the U. P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958, and seek to quash the notification dated June 30, 1966, issued by the State Government under Section 3 of that Act, determining the lease held by the petitioners.
(2.) THE material and the relevant facts and the questions which arise for determination are common in all the three writ petitions. They can be disposed of by a common judgment. The earliest of them, namely, G. S. Chooramani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (Civil Misc. Writ No. 3043 of 1966) is treated as the leading case. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, owned many villages in the area known as Tarai and Bhabar in the district of Naini Tal. The Tarai and Bhabar area was undeveloped, covered with dense forest and infested with wild animals. The State Government was anxious to develop this area by settling tenants thereon and introducing stable cultivation. It offered attractive terms and facilities to persons who were prepared to invest capital and effect improvement in it. The Government of Uttar Pradesh agreed to lease plots of land totalling 1188.82 acres situate in two villages Bangawam and Radhulia in favour of the petitioner's father Dr. Rameshwar Singh. The Deputy Commisssioner, Naini Tal, on behalf of the Government, executed a deed of lease on 12th February, 1951 of the aforesaid plots of land in favour of Dr. Rameshwar Singh for a term of 30 years beginning with 1st July, 1950, with option of renewal for further terms of 30 years, provided that such renewed terms together with the original term of the lease shall not exceed 90 years in the aggregate. The deed laid down the principles upon which the rent payable was to be calculated per bigha, as also the various rights and liabilities inter se between the parties. The lease was governed by the Government Grants Act XV of 1895. The petitioners allege that actual possession was delivered over 1107 acres only. An area of 270 acres was utilised for planting groves of various kinds of trees. The rest of the land was put to cultivation. All this was done after clearing the land of the forest and developing it so as to make it cultivable. The petitioners installed several tubewells, inducted labourers to the farm, constructed pucca buildings and sheds for them and animals, bought tractors, tools and other instruments for mechanised farming. The petitioners allege that they spent over Rs. 5,00,000,00 in building up the farm on the leased land.
(3.) ON 20th January, 1959 the U. P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958, (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1959) (hereinafter called the Thekedari Abolition Act) came into force. By a notification dated 17th June, 1965 the State Government extended the Thekedari Abolition Act to the district of Naini Tal. On 30th June 1966 the State Government issued the impugned notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 3 of the Thekedari Abolition Act determining all leases in respect of Government Estates in 35 villages including villages Bangawam and Radhulia, in the Tarai and Bhabar area. As a result the petitioners' lease stood determined prematurely, the Collector, Naini Tal issued a notice to the petitioners intimating them that the lease in their favour having come to an end, he will take possession of the land covered by the lease with effect from 1-7-1966. This action of the respondents led the petitioners to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of the Thekedari Abolition Act and the validity of the impugned notification was challenged in the petition on many grounds, but, at the hearing the learned counsel pressed the following points:-- (i) That the Act applies to thekedari leases alone and is not attracted to cultivatory leases; in any event, applying the Act without introducing land reforms was a mala fide exercise of power. (ii) The Act in substance acquires the lessees' rights, title and interests within the ceiling limit, but does not provide for the payment of constitutionally prescribed compensation at the market rate; and as such, it violates Article 31-A of the Constitution. (iii) The Act provides for payment of illusory compensation and infringes Article 31 of the Constitution. 4A. The preamble of the Thekedari Abolition Act states that it was an Act to provide for the Abolition of Thekedari system in Government Estates with a view to facilitate the introduction of land reforms therein. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 1, the Act extends to such districts of Uttar Pradesh as may be notified from time to time. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, the Act is to come in force on such date as the State Government may notify and different dates may be notified for different areas in the State. Under Section 3 the State Government was authorised to determine any lease with effect from a date to be called the date of determination. By Clause (5) of Section 2 'lease' was defined to mean a theka or patta in respect of a Government Estate made by or on behalf of the State Government. Clause (6) of Section 2 defined a 'lessee' to mean a the kedar or pattedar under a lease by whatever name called. Section 4 mentioned the consequences of the determination of leases. With the determination of the lease, all rights, title and interest of the lessee under the lease were to cease, as though the term of the lease had then expired. The lessee was to become the hereditary tenant of such land as he had brought under his personal cultivation upto a maximum area of 30 acres. Any area in excess of 30 acres in his personal cultivation was deemed to be vacant land and the lessee was liable to ejectment from such an area. Under Clause (g) of Section 4 every mortgage, sub-lease or other transfer of lessee rights also determined "as if the lands included in the lease had been acquired under an enactment providing for compulsory acquisition." Under Section 6 the Collector was to take charge and possession of the land included in the lease. Section 7 provided for payment of compensation to the lessee for the determination of the lease, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act. The amount payable as compensation was to be determined by multiplying the net income as determined under Section 10 by the number of years for which the lease had yet to run, subject to a maximum of five. ;