STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether sub-section (2) of Section 32-BB of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 vests such an uncanalised and unguided powers in the prescribed authority so as to infract the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is the sole, though meaningful, question that arises for determination in this appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent.

(2.) As is evident from the above, the facts would pale into relative insignificance and it suffices to mention that the prescribed authority penalised the respondent-landowner under the provisions of Section 32-BB sub-section (2) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for making default with regard to the filing of the returns there under. An area of 5 standard acres was declared surplus; specifically for not complying in strictness with the aforesaid provision, leaving in the hands of the respondent-landowner only 25 standard acres of land. The respondent though having statutory right of appeal under the statute, under Section 32-D subsection (3) of the Act, failed to resort to that remedy and instead he preferred a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which the latter declined for the reasons recorded in his order Annexure 'B' dated 9th April, 1963.

(3.) It deserves to 6e recalled that the petitioner had earlier preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 2066 of 1963, but not having challenged the vires of S. 32-BB of the Act therein he withdrew the same and then preferred the present writ petition, from which the proceedings arise and under which as noticed by the learned Single Judge, the sole question raised was the vires of Section 32-BB of the Act, It is manifest that no other paint was-urged and agreeing with the challenge posed on behalf of the respondent, the learned single Judge held that Section 32-BB (2) was violative of Article 14 and not saved by Article 31(2-B) of the Constitution. On these premises alone the writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner were quashed.