R.S.NARULA,J. - (1.) IN this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated September 1, 1975, allowing the petition of the writ petitioner-respondents under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and quashing the Notification of the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), dated August 30, 1974 (Annexure P-l), we have been somewhat handicapped on account of the respondents not having put in appearance despite service of notices of this appeal on them. At our request, however, Mr. J. N. Seth, Advocate, who happened to appear for them before the learned Single Judge, has been kind enough to assist us as Amicus Curiae.
(2.) THE facts of the case are brief and are beyond dispute. Out of an area of 5 kanals comprised in khasra No. 15/15/1 in khatauni No. 51 in Village Chandeli, Tahsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, a plot of land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas was notified under Section 4 of the Act on August 30, 1974 (Annexure P-l ). The objections of the respondents under Section 5-A of the Act, dated January 21, 1975 (Annexure P-2), were not accepted and the Collector made a report against the petitioners on March 13, 1975. The acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Act was impugned in the respondents' writ petition dated April 10, 1975, on various grounds. The only ground out of those, on which the petition has been allowed, is mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 9 (b) of the writ petition in the following words:-" 6. That the creation of a new khasra No. 15/15/1, Min North measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas out of 5 kanals is contrary to Section 13 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (50 of 1948) as respondent No. 2 could not acquire so as to leave a fragment. " "9 (b ). That the creation of new khasra No. 15/15/1, Min North out of khasra numbers carved during consolidation, is contrary to Section 13 of the Act 50 of 1948. " In reply to the above mentioned grounds, the Collector averred in his written statement as below:- "6. That acquisition of the land in question is being done out of necessity. All acquisitions are not barred by the provisions of Section 13 of Act No. 50 of 1948. Further action according to the Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act No. 50 of 1948 (Consolidation of Holdings Act) can be taken on regular initiation of proper proceedings. " "9 (b ). It is incorrect for the reasons given in para. 7. " The reference to paragraph 7 of the written statement in paragraph 9 (b) quoted above appears to be intended to refer to paragraph 6 thereof, as nothing stated in paragraph 7 of the return is relevant to the point in issue. In his judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge has observed that from a mere reading of Section 13 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Consolidation Act), it is clear that the State Govern- ment cannot acquire any land so as to leave a fragment and inasmuch as acquisition of a plot measuring l kanal 12 marlas in area out of the total area of 5 kanals comprised in khasra No. 15/15/1, amounts to the acquisition of a fragment, the impugned notification has to be set aside. It is in this view of the matter that the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the impugned notification was quashed as being violative of Section 13 of the Consolidation Act (reproduced below), leading to the filing of this appeal by the State of Punjab and the Collector, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur:- "13. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force no land shall be acquired by the (State) Government or any local authority or sold at any sale held under the orders of any court so as to leave a fragment. (2) If any land acquired by the State Government or any local authority is in excess of its requirements, it shall be offered for sale in the first instance to the owners of contiguous survey numbers or recognised sub-divisions of survey numbers at the price at which it was acquired under Sub-section (1 ). "
(3.) MR . I. S. Tiwana, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has taken us through the scheme of the Consolidation Act. The Consolidation Act is divided into five chapters. The First Chapter consists of only two sections. The First section is itself divided into three parts. Sub-section (1) of Section 1 gives the Consolidation Act its name. Sub-section (2) of Section l of that Act defines the extent of the application thereof to the whole of the State of Punjab. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Consolidation Act then reads as under:-" This section shall come into force at once and the remaining provisions of the Act shall come into force in such area and from such date as the (State) Government may by notification appoint in this behalf, and different dates may be appointed for the coming into force of different provisions of the Act. " Section 2 contains the definitions of the various expressions used in the Consolidation Act. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Consolidation Act defines "fragment" to mean "a plot of land of less extent than the appropriate standard area determined under this Act". "standard Area" is defined in Clause (i) of that section to mean "in respect of any class of land, the area which the State Government may from time to time determine under Section 5 as the minimum area necessary for profitable cultivation in any particular notified area and includes a standard area revised under the said section. " ;