- (1.) I propose to dispose of by this judgment 97 writ petitions which were heard together along with Letters Patent Appeal No. 762 of 1970. These writ petitions have to be divided into four groups in order to facilitate reference to the separate set of arguments advanced in respect of each group. The prayer in all these petitions is to quash the orders of the Collector, Kaithal, district Karnal, determining the leases of the respective parcels of land of which possession had been taken by the Collector under Section 3 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands act (38 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act), and which land had therefore been leased out to different persons for a period of twenty years. The first group is comprised of 57 petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 1376, 1377, 1383 to 1386, 1395, 1416, 1432, 1433, 1459, 1471, 1482, 1491, 1521, 1549, 1550, 1559, 1573, 1604, 1607, 1651 to 1654, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1694, 1713, 1752, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1791, 1817, 1836, 1944, 2000, 2001, 2438, 2720, 2749, 2820 to 2822, 3168, 3704, 3705, 3786, 3887, 3899, 3942, 3943, 3990 to 3992 of 1970) in which it is admitted that leases had been granted to the respective writ-petitioners under section 5 of the Act and were cancelled by the impugned orders of the Collector in writing passed under Section 6 of the Act. In some of these cased the lessees went up in appeal to the Commissioner has been impugned. In the second group I will take up seven cases (Civil Writs 1346, 1347, 1351, 1381, 1396, 1469 and 2439 of 1970) in which land had been taken over by the Collector under Section 3 and leased out under Section 5, but without executing any written lease-deed. In all the cases falling in this group, written orders have been passed by the Collector determining "the lease-deeds". The third group is of 29 petitions, i. e. Civil Writs 1483, 1490, 1496 to 1504, 1522 to 1526, 1560, 1634 to 1639, 1991, 2185, 2362, 2649, 2689 and 2836 of 1970. In all the cases falling in this group, the land was taken over by the Collector under Section 3, but had been leased out under section 5 to persons other than the writ-petitioners though it is claimed by most of the petitioners that they are in actual possession of the land. According to the respondents, these petitioners have come into unauthorised possession or been inducted by the original lessees as sub-tenants in violation of the terms of the respective leases. In the fourth group fall the remaining four petitions (Civil Writs 1394, 1643, 1883 and 2245 of 1970) which have certain special distinctive features of their own.
(2.) SO far as the cases in the first group are concerned, following points were urged by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners :- ( i) The orders are wholly void, in-executable and non est as Section 6 of the Act under which the Collector purports to have passed those orders is unconstitutional as it is hit by Art. 13 (2) of the Constitution on account of its being violative of the guarantee of equal protection of laws contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution; (ii) Even if it is assumed that Section 6 of the Act is valid, the leases of the petitioners could not be terminated under that provision before the expiry of the fixed period of twenty years for which the leases had been granted before the enactment of Section 6 in 1957; (iii) Even on the facts alleged by the respondents, no order under section 6 of the Act could be passed determining the leases of the petitioners as they had not incurred forfeiture of the leases, three being such default as would justify the determination of the leases. Inasmuch as there was no contravention of any of the terms of the leases, there could be no question of any action being taken under Section 6. In any case, a single default in payment of rent could not amount to contravention of the terms of the leases; (iv) In case it was found that any lessee had failed to pay lease-money within the prescribed time, it was the duty of the Collector to consider the question of relieving the lessee of the forfeiture on account of nonpayment of rent on the equitable principles contained in Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, and to actually relieve the lessees of the forfeiture in the circumstances of these cases; (v) The condition for payment of rent by the 15th of January in each year had been waived by the Collector during the long period of the leases and the Collector was now estopped by his conduct from enforcing the said term in the lease-deeds which had become a dead letter on account of such waiver. As an ancillary ground, it was urged that the Collector having accepted the lease-money for the whole of the year 1970, after determining the leases in the beginning of that year and the Collector having further accepted the rent for the whole of the year 1971, no action could be taken against the petitioners for dispossessing them from the land in question under Section 6 of the Act; (vi) It was the Collector of the district alone who could pass orders under section 6 of the Act. Shri Ram Narain Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, kaithal, who passed the impugned orders had, therefore, no jurisdiction or authority to pass such orders under the Act; (vii) In accordance with the principles of natural justice the Collector could not act as a judge in his own cause, and could not combine in himself the dual capacity of a landlords and a judge; (viii) On a proper construction of Section 6 and Rule 5 of the rules framed under the Act, two independent actions are provided for in those provisions viz. (a) determination of the lease, and (b) taking possession of the lease-hold land. Inasmuch as notices served on the petitioners as well as the impugned orders passed against the petitioners were only in respect of and confined to the first matter, the petitioners could not possibly be dispossessed in pursuance of those orders without fresh notices being given in respect of the second matter, and fresh orders being passed, if necessary in respect of that matter; (ix) The notices issued to the petitioners of which copies have in most of the cases been produced by the respondents, do not fulfil the requirements of Rule 5 of the rules framed under the Act; (x) Even if the entire action taken by the respondents against the petitioners is found to be strictly in accordance with law, the same is still liable to be struck down as the impugned orders have not been passed in bona fide exercise of the legal powers, but the said action was actuated by malice and based on extraneous reasons;; (xi) Substantial amounts had been deposited by the lessees with the collector as earnest-money. So long as the amounts of such deposits exceeded the maximum claim for arrears of lease-money, the lessees could not be said to have committed any default; and (xii) In cases in which the leases have been determined (not for nonpayment of lease-money) on account of the lessees having sown commercial crops instead of food or fodder in the land in question no order under Section 6 of the Act determining the leases could be passed, as violation of the said special condition (contained in Section 5 of the act) results only in the special penalty provided by Section 8 being imposed, and in case of which the only remedy available to the Collector is the special one provided by Section 10.
(3.) THE only additional argument advanced in the second group of cases was that in the admitted absence of any written lease-deed, orders of the Collector purporting to cancel "the lease-deed" were meaningless and were, therefore, unenforceable. Now I will take up all the abovementioned points raised in the first and the second group of cases one by one.;