- (1.) THE Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), received the assesent of the President of India on Dec. 22. 1972, and as published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated December 23, 1972. on which date it came into force. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Act, the Governor of Haryana, by notification No G. S. R. 99/h. A. 26/72/ S. 31/73 dated August 28, 1973. promulgated the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called the Rules), to carry out the objects of the Act. A number of landowners have filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Act and the Rules, out of which 172 petitions have been placed before us for decision. This order will dispose of all those writ petitions. (Petition numbers omitted-Ed.)
(2.) THE preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to ceiling on land holdings in the State of Haryana and the statement of objects and reasons reads as under:- " now in the State of Haryana two enactments, that is, The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, are in force. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act aoplies only to those parts of the State which were comprised in the State of Punjab before 1st of November, 1956. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 applies to those territories of the Erstwhile State of Pepsu which now form part of the State of Haryana. It has become essential that the law relating to ceiling on agricultural land contained in the aforesaid two Acts and which applies to certain parts of the State of Haryana should be unified and there should be only one Act on the ceiling of agricultural land for the whole of the State of Haryana. Secondly, the Central Committee on Land Reforms appointed by the Government of India evolved a policy which sought to make available additional land to be distributed among landless persons to guarantee equitable distribution of land. To achieve this object it has been decided that permissible area be reduced, that the surplus area should vest in the State Government and a family is to be treated a unit for determining the permissible area. It has also been decided that certain exemptions which were allowed under the two existing enactments should be withdrawn. Thirdly, the surplus land is to be acquired by the State Government for allotment to the landless persons and further proprietary rights are to be conferred on them. " Section 2 of the Act declares that the Act has been passed for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of this declaration was to make the provisions of the Act immune from challenge on grounds of violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, as is provided in Article 31-C
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners have not challenged that the provisions of the Act, except those which are being declared ultra vires in the later part of this judgment, pertain to agrarian reforms and give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. This matter was dealt with in detail by a Full Bench of this Court, of which one pf us was a member, in Sucha Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab. ILR (1974) 1 Punj and Har 575 = (AIR 1974 Punj and Har 162) (FB), and it was held that the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, which pertained to agrarian reforms and gave effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India, were immune from attack on the ground that they took away or abridged any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The statement of objects and reasons and most of the provisions of the Act, being similar to those of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, that judgment applies with full force to the Act and the learned counsel for the petitioners have not urged anything to the contrary. So we will proceed on the same basis while considering the provisions of the Act under challenge in these petitions.;