R.S.Narula, J. - (1.) THE constitutionality and scope of the operation of Section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act (10 of 1973) (hereinafter called the 1973 Act) has been called in question in this bunch of ten writ petitions (CWs. 2020, 2182, 2574, 2825, 3033, 3046, 3906 and 4036 of 1973, and 658 and 659 of 1974) on the following grounds: (i) the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 15 reducing the amount payable by a tenant to his landowner for purchasing the land comprised in his tenancy from 75 per cent of ten years average market value under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953)(hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act) to 90 times the land revenue or Rs. 500 per hectare (whichever is less) does not partake of the nature of an agrarian reform, and is, therefore, not immune to an attack on the ground of its being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution; (ii) the bar to the, questioning of the adequacy of any amount made payable by any statute for acquiring any property by the State, referred to in Article 31 -A, does not operate against an attack on the vires of a statute on the ground of violation of Article 31 of the Constitution if the statute has been enacted after the substitution of the present Clause (2) of Article 31 for the original corresponding clause as the present Article 31(2) was not in the Constitution when Article 31 -A was enacted in 1951. In other words the expression "Article 31" in Article 31 -A refers to only that "Article 31" which was in the Constitution at the time of the coming into force of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951; (iii) the relevant decision of seven out of thirteen Judges of the Supreme Court in His Holiness Kesavananda Bkarati Sripadagalyaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. : A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461, (hereinafter referred to as the Kesavananda's (case) makes the question of the quantum of the amount fixed by a law under Article 31(2) of the Constitution justiciable by a Court if it is found that the amount fixed by the law was not based on any norm or principle which might be relevant for the purpose of arriving at the amount pay -, able in respect of acquiring the property or if it is found. that the amount fixed under the law is either illusory or has been fixed arbitrarily; (iv) the amount equal to 90 times the land revenue subject to a ceiling of Rs. 500 per hectare, which is to be received by a landowner from his tenant who acquires the land comprised in his tenancy, has no reasonable relationship with the value of the property sought to be acquired by a tenant and the same has been fixed arbitrarily and is absolutely illusory; and is in reality a fraud on the Constitution and is therefore ultra vires Article 31(2) of the Constitution; (v) the ceiling of Rs. 200 per acre (that is Rs. 500 per hectare) fixed by the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 15 has in any case no relevancy at all to the value of the property and is absolutely arbitrary; (vi) the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 15 which reduces the rate of compensation payable by a tenant to the detriment of the landowner is not retrospective in its operation, and cannot, therefore, apply to fixation of the compensation payable to those of the Petitioners whose tenants had applied under Section 18 of the 1953 Act for purchasing the land prior to the coming into force of the 1973 Act; and (vii) the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to decide an application under Section 18 of the 1953 Act (read with Section 15 of the 1973 Act or otherwise) till the permissible area of the landowner has been finally determined.
(2.) IN view of the nature of the points canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the parties it is unnecessary to refer to the detailed facts of any case except to mention that in nine out of these ten cases, applications under Section 18 of the 1953 Act for acquiring the land comprised in the tenancy of the respective tenant -Respondents were pending when the 1973 Act come into force, and in some of the cases the applications are being proceeded with in spite of the fact that the permissible area of the landowner -Petitioners in those cases has not yet been determined. Due to historical reasons two different enactments were in force in different portions of the State of Punjab before the 1973 Act came into force. The Patiala and East Punjab States Union formed a separate State before its merger with the erstwhile State of Punjab under the States Re -organisation Act, 1956. Whereas the 1953 Act was enforced in the erstwhile State of Punjab with effect from April 15, 1953, the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called the Pepsu Act) was enforced in the Pepsu region with effect from March 4, 1955. The relevant material difference between the scheme underlying the two Acts was that whereas under the 1953 Act the landowner was not divested of his rights of ownership in that area of his holding which was declared to be surplus (that is the area which was beyond his permissible area) and the tenants of the landowner on the surplus area (whether originally settled by him or inducted into that area by the State in accordance with the terms of a scheme framed under that Act) continued to be the tenants of the landowner and were liable to pay the rent of the land to him; the Pepsu Act provided for the landowner being divested of his rights of ownership in the surplus area which was to belong to the State and which was to be utilised by the State for the benefit of the evicted tenants or landless persons, etc." under Section 32 -E of the Pepsu Act. Under that Act the surplus area of a landowner was to vest in the State Government free from encumbrances created by any person, and the right, title and interest of all other persons in such land stood extinguished.
(3.) A landowner whose total holding was within the permissible limits was described as a small landowner in the 1953 Act. Such a landowner was entitled to eject a tenant under Section 9(1)(i) of the 1953 Act. Similarly a tenant on the reserved area of a landowner had no protection against ejectment. Section 18 of that Act conferred a right on a tenant of a landowner other than a small landowner to purchase from the landowner the land held. by him in his tenancy which was not included in the reserved area of the landowner, if the tenant had been in continuous occupation of the said land for a minimum period of six years prior to the date of his making the application and in two other eventualities mentioned in that section. Under Sub -section (2) of Section 18, the Assistant Collector was required to determine the value of the land sought to be purchased by a tenant. The value so determined was to be the average of the prices obtaining for similar land in the locality during ten years immediately preceding, the date on which the application was made. The purchase price payable by a tenant under Section 18(3) of the 1953 Act was to be three -fourths of the value of the land so determined. The purchase price had to be paid either in a lump sum or in six -monthly instalments not exceeding ten in the manner prescribed in Section 18. Clause (b) of Sub -section (4) of Section 18 provided that on the purchase -price or the first installment thereof, as the case may be, being deposited, the tenant was to be deemed to have become the owner of the land (and was to be put in possession by the Assistant Collector where he had been dispossessed). Under Section 22 of the Pepsu Act, a tenant of a big landowner on a piece of land which was not reserved by the landowner for his personal cultivation was entitled to acquire the right, title or interest of his landowner in the land comprised in his tenancy by making an application under Sub -section (2) of that section. Section 23 required the prescribed authority to determine the compensation payable by a tenant for the land purchased by him under Section 22 in accordance with the principles set out in Section 26. Those principles were couched in the following language in Section 26(1) of the Pepsu Act: Where any person has acquired proprietary rights in respect of any land under this Chapter, he shall be liable to pay, to the landowner from whom such rights have been acquired compensation at the rate of ninety times the land revenue (including rates and cesses) payable for such land or two hundred rupees per acre, whichever is less. The compensation so determined was to be deposited by the tenant in the manner prescribed in Sub -sections (2) and (3) of Section 23. On and with effect from the date of issue of the certificate of the requisite deposit having been made under Sub -section (3) of Section 23, the proprietary rights of the landowner in the land specified in the certificate was to stand extinguished and was to vest in the tenant -Applicant free from all encumbrances. It was in the above -mentioned circumstances that the 1973 Act was enacted and brought into force with effect from April 2, 1973, so as to attain uniformity in respect of the law relating to the ceiling of agricultural land in the historically two different portions of the united State of Punjab. In the official statement of objects and reasons for passing the 1973 Act, following three objects for repealing the 1953 Act and the Pepsu Act, and for enacting the new law were set out: Now in the State of Punjab two enactments, i.e., 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, 1953, applies 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 Punjab. 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 Punjab should be unified and there should be only one Act on the agricultural land for the whole of the State of Punjab. 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 as 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. On the whole the Pepsu pattern has been adopted in the 1973 Act for the whole of the State of Punjab. The Pepsu Act and' the 1953 Act have been described in the 1973 Act as the Pepsu law and the Punjab law as per definition of those expressions contained in Clauses (x) and (xii) respectively of Section 3 of the new Act. Subject to the right of the tenant to purchase the land comprised in his tenancy out of the surplus area of a landowner, the entire surplus area, of a land -owner, whether declared as such under the Punjab law or the Pepsu law, which has not been utilised till the commencement of the 1973 Act has, under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act, been vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The Collector has been authorised by Section 9 of the 1973 Act to take possession of the surplus area, of any land -owner, even by force it necessary. The amount payable to a land -owner for his surplus area which is vested in the State under Section 8 has to be determined on the principles set out in Section 10(1) in the following words: (1) for the first three hectares of land, twelve times the fair rent, subject to a maximum of five thousand rupees., per hectare; (ii) for the next three hectares of land, nine times the fair rent subject to a maximum of three thousand seven hundred and fifty rupees per hectare; and (iii) for the remaining land six times the fair rent subject to a maximum of two thousand and five hundred rupees, per hectare. The surplus area so fixed and taken over by the State Government has then to be utilised according to a scheme for utilisation under Section 11 of the 1973 Act.;