Judgment

K. N. WANCHOO, J. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (U. P. V of 1954). as amended by U. P. Acts, No. XXVI of 1954, No. XIII of 1955, No. XX of 1955, No. XXIV of 1956 and No. XVI of 1957, (hereinafter called the Act). The applicants are four brothers holding land in village Banat, tahsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar. A notification was issued under S. 4 of the Act in respect of 223 villages in tahsil Kairana, declaring that the State Government had decided to make a scheme of consolidation in that area. This was followed up by necessary action under the various provisions of the Act resulting in a statement of proposals under S. 19. Objections to these proposals were filed by the petitioners and others, which were decided in April 1956. The petitioners went in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which was decided in August 1957. It was thereafter that the present petition was filed in this Court.

2. The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds, of which the following five have been urged before us :-

(1) Section 6 read with S. 4 of the Act given arbitrary powers to the State Government to accord discriminatory treatment to tenure-holders in different villages by placing some villages under consolidation while excluding others, thus offending Art 14 of the Constitution.

(2) Sections 8, 9 and 10 read with S. 49 of the Act provide a procedure for the correction and revision of revenue records for villages under consolidation, which is vitally different from that applicable to villages not under consolidation, and there is thus discrimination which offends Art. 14 of the Constitution :

(3) Sections 14 to 17 read with S.49, canter arbitrary powers on the consolidation authorities under which they can deprive a tenure-holder of his land or rights therein and the tenure-holder has been deprived of the protection of Courts available to other tenure-holders in villages not under consolidation, thus creating discrimination which offends Art. 14 ;

(4) Sections 19 to 22, read with S. 49, again create discrimination on the same grounds as Ss. 14 to 17, and are, therefore, hit by Art. 14 ; and

(5) Section 29-B, which provides for compensation gives inadequate compensation and is, therefore hit by Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution.

3. Before we take these points seriatim, it is useful to refer to the background of this legislation. As far back as 1939, the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act No. VIII of 1989, was passed. It was, however, of little effect, because it could only be applied when more than one-third of the proprietors of the cultivated area of a village applied for an order of consolidation of the village. It was, therefore, felt that some kind o compulsion would be necessary in order to achieve consolidation of holdings in villages. That consolidation would result in improving agricultural production goes without saying and it was with the object of encouraging the development of agriculture that consolidation schemes with a compulsory character were taken up in various States, after the recommendation of The Famine Inquiry Commission 1944, in its Final Report ; (See page 263). The State of Bombay was the first to pass an Act called the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, (Bom. LXII of 1947). This was followed by the impugned Act in Uttar Pradesh. The object of the Act is to allot a compact area in licu of scattered plots to tenure-holders so that large scale cultivation may be possible with all its attendant advantages. Thus, by the reduction of boundary-lines saving of and takes place and the number of boundary disputed is reduced There is saving of in the management of fields inasmuch as the farmer is saved from travelling from field to field, which may be at considerable distances from each other. Proper barriers such as fences, hedges and ditches can