JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by one petitioner. The prayer and the issues involved are identical. These can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE petitioner prays that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, copies of which have been produced is Annexures P1 to P5 with this writ petition, be quashed. By these orders the petitioner who was a tenant of respondent No. 6 has been ordered to be evicted from the land in his possession. The solitary contention raised by Mr. P.C. Mehta, Senior Advocate, is that the provision in the 3rd proviso to Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which denies the protection to the tenant is arbitrary and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Is it so ? Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, contains the relevant provision. It reads as under :- "Accommodation of tenants on surplus area. - No tenant liable to ejectment under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of the section next preceding shall be dispossessed of his tenancy unless he is accommodated on a surplus area in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A or otherwise on some other land by the State Government : Provided that if the tenant concerned is the tenant of a small landowner, he shall be allowed to retain possession of his tenancy to the extent of five standard acres including any other land which he may hold as tenant or owner, until he is so accommodated on a surplus area or otherwise : Provided further, that if a tenancy commences after the commencement of this Act, and the tenant is also an owner and is related to his landlord in the manner prescribed, he shall not be entitled to the benefit of this section : Provided further that the tenant of a landowner who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union shall also not be entitled to the benefit of this Section." (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of the above provision shows that a tenant is normally entitled to be accommodated on the surplus area. However, the third proviso which was introduced by Act No. 28 of 1962 makes an exception in case of the tenant of a landowner "who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union.......". Mr. Mehta contends that this provision is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
(3.) ON a perusal of the provisions, we find that an exception has been made in the case of landowners serving the Armed Forces of the Union. Apparently, there is a good rationale for the exception. It is well known that the members of the Armed Forces have to serve at different places in the country. They remain away from their lands. They are, thus, not able to cultivate. In view of the peculiar nature of duties which are performed by the members of the Armed Forces, the Legislature has considered it appropriate to make an exception. We are of the view that this exception is well founded. Persons who shed their blood for this nation are entitled to a differential treatment. In doing so, the Legislature has not violated any constitutional mandate or the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 21.;