R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) ALL these five Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 762 to 765 and 767 of 1970) arise out of common judgment of a learned Single Judge, dated November 26, 1970, whereby five writ petitions of the respective Appellants principally impugning the validity and constitutionality of Section 6 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act (38 of 1949)(introduced by Section 2 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 24 of 1957, into the 1949 Act as amended up to that time) were dismissed. The facts of only one of these cases (L.P.A. 762 of 1970) may be noticed as there is no material difference between those facts and the history of the other four cases so far as the same are relevant for deciding the points argued before us.
(2.) THE Collector, Karnal, gave ten acres of Banjar land (of which he had taken possession under Section 3 of the Act) on lease for twenty years to Ram Chand Appellant on August 31, 1954, at the rate of Rs. 3 per acre per annum. This lease was given under Section 5 of the Act. Copy of the instrument of lease is Annexure R/1 to the written statement of the Respondents. Conditions Nos. 1 and 2 of the lease provided that the rent of the land for the first year was to be paid by January 25, 1955, and the rent of the subsequent years was payable on the 15th of January each year; the rent of the last two years of the lease being payable in advance. The lessee was not to assign; transfer; mortgage or sublet the land (condition No. 6). The seventh covenant stated that the lessee shall use his land only for the purpose of sowing food and fodder crops and for no other purpose. The lessee was to reclaim and bring under cultivation half of the leased land by May 23, 1955 and the remaining half by February 23, 1956 (condition No. 8). The ninth term of the lease required the lessee to deposit with the Collector at the commencement of the lease a stipulated amount as security for due observance and faithful performance of the condition of the lease. Conditions Nos. 11, 15 and 16 of the lease were in the following terms: 11. In case of any breach by the lessee of any of the conditions to be observed and performed by him; the Collector shall, without prejudice to other rights and remedies, be entitled to determined the lease and to take possession of the land. In that case the lessee shall not be entitled to any compensation. 15. The lessee shall be subject to all the provisions of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act as amended from time to time. 16. If any question or dispute shall at any time arise between the Collector and the lessee with respect to the meaning or effect of any clause in this deed or the rights or liabilities of the parties thereto, then all such questions or disputes; save insofar as their decision is provided for in the said Act shall be referred to the arbitration of the Commissioner of the Division acting as such as the time of reference, whose decision shall be conclusive and binding on the parties. There in no allegation of any complaint against the Appellant regarding violation or non -performance of any of the terms of the lease right from 1954 till the end of 1969. According to the Appellant, he had in fact paid rent in excess of the amount due from him at the rate of Rs. 3 per acre per annum as only 9 acres of land had actually been delivered to him after consolidation as against the stipulated area of 10 acres, and he had been paying Rs. 30 per annum. On April 19, 1970, the Patwari Halqa notified to the Appellant to show cause to that Collector on the next day, i.e., on April 20, 1970; as to why his lease should not be cancelled on account of default in payment of Rs. 30 due as advance lease -money for the year 1970. Admittedly no copy of the notice (which the Appellant was made to sign in acknowledgment of its contents having been made known to him) was delivered to or left with the Appellant. A copy of that notice (Annexure R/2) was, however, produced by the Respondents with their return filed before the learned Single Judge. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition it was stated by the Appellant that when he appeared in the Court of Respondent No. 2 on April 20, 1970, his statement was recorded by Shri Balmukand; Naib Tahsildar, Kaithal. (Respondent No. 4) who was sitting in a room apart from the Court room of Respondent No. 2. Appellant claims to have deposed at that time; (i) that the delay in payment had occurred because of the past practice according to which payment before January 15 was not insisted upon in the previous years; (ii) that in fact excess amount had already been paid by him to the Government which was more than the lease -money due for 1970; and (iii) that he was prepared to pay the amount in question immediately. In the corresponding paragraph of the State return, none of the above -mentioned governments had been denied except the allegation about the statement of the Appellant having been recorded in a separate room. In that connection it was claimed that the statement of the Appellant had been written by the Patwari from the dictation of the Collector in Collector's room. It was not denied that only 9 acres of land had in fact been given to the Appellant against ten acres for which he had been paying lease -money. Nor was it denied that in this manner, the Appellant had already paid rent in addition to the amount due from him which excess amounted to more than Rs. 20. The allegation of the Appellant about his having paid out Rs. 30 in question in spite of the above facts on may 1, 1970, after the date of hearing, i.e., April 20; 1970; is also not in dispute. A copy of the Appellant's statement, dated April 20, 1970, has been produced by the Respondent's as Annexure R/3 to their return. In paragraph 8 of the written statement, it has been admitted specifically that the Appellant had offered to pay the sum of Rs. 30 at that very time when he appeared before the Collector on April 20, 1970. On the same date, i.e., on April 20, 1970; the Collector signed the impugned order (copy Annexure 'A' to the writ petition), the original of which has been shown to us by the learned Advocate -General, and which was on a typed form with blanks filled in manuscript (erroneously described as cyclostyled in the writ petition), determining the lease of the Appellant. In that order it has been stated that the land measuring 76 Kanals and 6 Marias in lieu of the land originally leased to the Appellant had been given to him in consolidation proceedings and the rent of the land had to be paid at Rs. 3 per acre per annum. Without entering into the question of the alleged excess amount paid by the Appellant and without dealing with the question of the offer made by him to pay the rent there and then, reference was made to the Appellant's admission that Rs. 30 were due according to the Government's account, and it was held that the Appellant had, therefore, committed breach of the first condition of the lease. It was on that short ground that the lease of the Appellant in respect of the land measuring 76 Kanals 6 Marias was cancelled by the impugned order. The writ petition from which this appeal has arisen was then filed by Ram Chand in this Court praying for the quashing of the order Annexure 'A', and for restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Appellant from the land in dispute. Dispossession of the Appellant during the pendency of the writ petition was stayed ad interim at the time of the admission of the petition, and that stay was subsequently confirmed till the disposal of the case.
(3.) THE writ petition was contested by the Respondents on whose behalf an affidavit of Shri Ram Narain Singh, S.D.O., (Civil) -cum -Collector, Kaithal, was filed accompanied by the annexures to which reference has already been made. Annexure R/4 was attached to the return to show that the Collector, Karnal, had delegated all the powers of the Collector vested in him under the Act to all the Sub -Divisional Officers (Civil) in Karnal district in exercise of the Collector's power of delegation under Section 12 of the Act. Certain amendments made to the Act after the filing of the writ petition will be referred to while giving the history of the relevant legislation. By his judgment, dated November 26, 1970, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It appears to be necessary to set out at this stage the history of the relevant legislation with which the learned Single Judge had to deal in all these cases.;