S.B. Capoor, J. - (1.) THESE are nine civil writ petitions Nos. 859 and 1666 of 1962, Nos. 201, 202, 214, 135, 319, 320 and 5 of 1963, under Article 226 of the Constitution which have been placed before this Division Bench either by orders of the admitting Bench or by orders of learned Single judges of this Court before whom some of them came up subsequent to their admission and the crucial point involved in all these petitions is common viz. Whether the action of the State Government in' ordering consolidation of holdings in various revenue estates under Sub -section (1) of Section 14 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (L of 1948), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was legal and within the jurisdiction of the State Government or not?
(2.) ONE fact common to all these writ petitions is that consolidation of holding had hardly taken place in each of the revenue estates in which it is now challenged under the Act. It appears that at first consolidation of holdings was taking place under the aegis or co -operative consolidation societies formed according to the provisions of the Co -operative Societies Act, 1912. These societies worked purely on voluntary basis, that is, the membership of the co -operative consolidation society was voluntary and the society could not include the holdings for consolidation of those proprietors who did not join as members. All the same, every member on admission was required under the by -laws of the societies (see pp. 649 657 of Om Prakash's Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1940 Ed. where the model by laws are reproduced) to sign the agreement binding him to the general principles of consolidation and to any method or arrangement of consolidation of holdings agreed to by two -thirds of the whole number of members in a general meeting and to give possession in accordance therewith not for any experimental period but as a, permanent arrangement subject however, to any future partition or rearrangement of the consolidated area approved by two -thirds of the whole number of members in a general meeting. There was a provision in the by -laws for arbitration in case any disputes arose concerning the business of the society. The object of these societies was to promote the economic interests of its members and more particularly to secure beneficial rearrangement of holdings to (sic) loss and waste by fragmentation. In practice, however, it was found that on account of the consolidation of holdings being purely on voluntary basis the progress of this important agricultural reform in the Punjab was not so rapid as was desired and the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936, (Punjab Act No. IV of 1936) was enacted, one of the outstanding features of which was that if not less than two -thirds of the land -owners in an estate or a sub -division of an estate holding not less than three -fourths of the cultivated area made an application for the consolidation of their holdings, the application shall be deemed to be an application on behalf of all the landowners and that if any scheme ' of consolidation was confirmed by the same majority it shall become binding on all the landowners and their successors in interest (vide Statement of Objects and Reasons as published in Punjab Gazette, Part I, dated 16th October, 1936, pp. 1257 -1258, and as embodied in Section 3 of Act IV of 1936) Sub -section (2) of Section 1 of this Act provided that it shall apply to all societies having as their object the consolidation of holdings and registered under the Co -operative Societies Act, 1912, though the Provincial Government was empowered to except any society or class of societies from the operation of all or any of the provisions of Act IV of 1936. Finally, there was East Punjab Act L of 1948 which repealed Act IV of 1936 and made provision not only for the consolidation of holdings but also for prevention of fragmentation. One very important change in this Act was that the State Government was empowered of its -own motion to order consolidation of holdings in -any estate or group of estates or any part thereof and this was embodied in Sub -section (1) of Section -14 which is as follows: 14(1). With the object of consolidating holdings in any estate or group of estates or any part thereof for the purpose of better cultivation of lands therein, the State Government may of its own motion or on application made in this behalf declare by notification and by publication in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned its intention to make a scheme for. the consolidation of holdings in such estate or estates or part thereof as may be specified. * * * In all the writ petitions except in C.W. 201 of 1963 it is common ground between the Petitioners and the Respondents that the previous consolidation of holdings in the estates concerned had been made by Co -operative Consolidation of Holdings Societies registered under the provisions of Co -operative Societies Act 1912. In writ petition No. 201 of 1963 though it was alleged that the consolidation of holdings in village Mangli Khurd to which this writ petition relates formerly took place under the provisions of Act IV of 1936, but it was stated in the return filed on be -half of the Respondents that the holdings in the village were consolidated under the Co -operative 'Societies Act 1912 and Mr. H.S. Wasu, on behalf of the Petitioners in this writ petition was not in a position to challenge this particular assertion as made in the return. The position, therefore, in all the writ petitions is that previously the consolidation of holdings was done by cooperative societies registered under the Co -operative Societies Act 1912 and the crucial question for determination is whether in that event reconsolidation of holdings could be ordered by the State Government in those estates under the Act of 1948.
(3.) VARIOUS submissions were made lay the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in that, behalf. Firstly, it was pointed out that any order made of its own accord by the State Government for the consolidation of holdings would necessarily mean interference with the fundamental lights of citizens of India under sub -clause (f) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution to acquire hold and dispose of property. Such restrict ions could he justified only under clause (5) of that Article, that is, if the restrictions imposed by the statute were reasonable in the interest of the general "public. Sub -section (1) of Section 14 of the Act did not specifically confer on the Government the power to consolidate holdings in an estate where consolidation had already taken place and it would be a most unreasonable interference with the fundamental rights of citizens under sub -clause (f) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution if the State Government proceed - ed to order consolidation again and again in the same estate. Secondly it was submitted that Chapter II of the Act conferred ample power on the State Government to prevent fragmentation of holdings in any estate in which consolidation had already taken place. It was not, therefore, open to the State Government to refrain from exercising its powers under Chapter II and insist on ordering reconsolidation of holdings in exercise of its powers under Sub -section (1) of Section 14. Thirdly it was stated that the exercise of its powers under Sub -section (1) of Section 14 by the State Government was a quasi -judicial act so that before ordering consolidation of holdings in any estate it was necessary for it to give notice of its intention to the land -owners and others in that estate in order to give them an opportunity to show that actually reconsolidation of holdings was not necessary. In as much as before issuing the impugned notification under which reconsolidation of holdings is being made in the estates to which these writ petitions relate, the State Government made 110 such enquiry, the notification made by it under Sub -section (1) of Section 14 was liable to be struck down. Lastly it was submitted that the State Government in issuing the impugned notification was acting mala fide because there was no necessity for reconsolidation and its real object is to deprive the village proprietors of some of their land in order to provide more land for the use of the Gram Panchayats and for extension of abadi sites to be made available to the non -proprietors.;