Chopra, J. - (1.) AN identical question of law is involved in the above noted five petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and they are, therefore, disposed of by this order.
(2.) MANOHAR Lal, Petitioner in three of the petitions, used to work a kiln at Rohta, a villager in the erstwhile Nabha State. Certain sums were; found due from him to the State as Royalty for different years with respect to this kiln. These sums are being realized from him by the Collector, Patiala. In the new administrative set up, Rohta, the place of Petitioner's residence and where the property from which the amount is. being recovered is situate, falls within Patiala. District. Vidya Sagar Petitioner got certain agricultural land at Bhadaur belonging to the State; on lease for the year 1951 -52 for Rs. 34,000/ -The lease -money due to the State is being recovered from the Petitioner by the Collector, Barnala, within whose district the land is situate and the Petitioner resides. A brick -kiln at Bhadaur in the joint ownership of the Petitioner and Nathi Ram, another Petitioner, has been attached.
(3.) THE main point urged in these petitions is that the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act, 2002, under which the recovery is being made, stands repealed by Section 4, Opium and Revenue Laws (Extension of Application) Act, 1950, and hence the proceedings taken under the former Act are void and without jurisdiction. In the alternative, it is contended that Section 3(1), Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act (hereinafter called the impugned Act) is hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void.;