IMPORTANT POINT
Right to economic empowerment to the Dalits, Tribes and poor as a part of distributive justice is a fundamental right and assignment of land to them under Article 39(b) of Constitution was to provide socio economic justice to Scheduled Castes.

ORDER

Substitution allowed.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. The facts in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8269/94 are sufficient for disposal of all the matters by common judgment.

3. The appellant-Charan Singh, a member of the Scheduled Castes, was granted 55 Kanals 15 Marlas of the land situated in the revenue estate of Katkopa in Faridkot District of Punjab State as per the policy. It is now not in dispute that in 1962, he was granted lease of uncultivable waste land and he reclaimed the land and also set up tube-well and was cultivating the land. The said lease expired in 1972. Thereafter, he was found to be in unauthorised occupation of such land. Action was taken for his eviction. He challenged the action in various proceedings. Ultimately, in the impugned order it was held that since he was a lessee and the lease stood expired by efflux of time, he had no right to remain in possession thereof. Accordingly, the order of eviction was upheld by the High Court.

4. Shri V.C. Mahajan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contends that since the appellant is a member of Scheduled Castes the Government had allotted the land which originally belonged to Maharaja of Faridkot; a vast extent of land was found in possession of Maharaja of which 38,000 was taken from Maharaja and 20159 kanal, 2 marlas was converted into nazool land; the Government had taken a decision to allot this nazool land to the members of the Scheduled Castes. He placed before us the relevant proceedings issued by the Government in that behalf. We find from the proceedings taking that action in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Initially, the appellants had come into possession by way of a lease granted to them. They remained in possession of the land after the expiry of the lease but reclaimed the land and brought it under cultivation, obviously after incurring considerable expenses and labour. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesakar v. Vishawanath Pandu Barde & Anr.1, the question arose; whether the alienation of the lands assigned to the Scheduled Tribes was valid in law? In that context, considering the Preamble, the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights including the right to life assured by Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court had held that economic empowerment and social justice are Fundamental Rights of the tribes. The basic aim of the welfare State is the attainment of substantial degree of social, economic and political equalities to achieve self-expression in his work as a citizen as also leisure and social justice. The distinguishing characterstic of the welfare State is the assumption by community, acting through the State and its responsibilities to provide the means and opportunities whereby all its members can reach minimum standard of and orders made from time to time that either the nazool land or the Government surplus land was directed to be assigned initially to the Co-operative Societies composed of member of Scheduled Castes and later it was relaxed in favour of the individual members. It is, therefore, contended by Shri Mahajan that instead of treating the appellant as unauthorised occupant, he should be deemed to have been assigned the land as per the Nazool Land Rules, 1956 then in vogue. Instead, the appellant was sought to be evicted. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent-Government is not correct in law. Shri Manoj Swarup, learned Counsel for the State, contends that the land was, though assigned for 10 years, the Government land. The Government has got power to assign to the persons as per the procedure in vogue. Pending the appeals in this Court, possession was taken and the land was auctioned to the third parties and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any right.

5. Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents were justified in law to take action against the appellants for their ejectment? W