Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : These two petitions raise a question as to he validity and constitutionality of R. 31 framed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act No. 13 of 1955) as mended by Pepsu Act No. 15 of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act) and will be dealt with together. The attack on the rule is Practically similar in the two petitions and therefore we shall only give the facts in Petition No. 261 to understand the nature of the attack. The petitioners in Petition No. 261 are landowners in village Dhamo Majra, District Patiala, in the State of Punjab. They are running an agricultural farm on a mechanised scale and the area of the farm measures 421 acres. This area is a compact block of land and it is said that some part of the area is potentially of high productivity whereas other area is of inferior quality and less productive capacity by reason of the presence of alakine (sic) patches of soil therein. The land was originally scrub jungle and was uneven and extensive reclamation was carried on by the petitioners at heavy cost. They spent a large mount for terracing and levelling the land, constructing bundhs, water channels approach roads and in standardising the area of the fields. Two wells were constructed for providing irrigational facilities and the petitioners have their own electric station for the purpose. They have also constructed manure pits and have made permanent structural improvements in the shape of construction of roads, servant quarters, tractor sheds, cattle-sheds and stores, and have in all incurred expenses over rupees three lacs for all these purposes. The petitioners are carrying on farming on the basis of scientific cultivation practices, sowing practices and manure practices and because of the use of modern technique the overall yield per acre is very high keeping in view the fertility and nature of the soil.

2. On March 4, 1955, the Act was enacted. It was amended on October 30, 1956 and Chaps. IV-A and IV-B were introduced therein. The petitioners have not challenged the constitutionality of these two chapters and their attack is only on R. 31 framed under the powers conferred on the State Government under these chapters. The scheme of Chap. IV-A is to provide ceiling on land and S. 32-A thereof fixes the permissible limit of land which can be owned or held by any person as landowner or tenant under his personal cultivation. "Permissible limit" is defined in S. 3 of the Act and means "thirty standard acres of land and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed eighty acres, such eighty acres A "Standard acre" is defined in S. 2(i) as "a measure of land convertible with reference to the yield from, and the quality of soil, into ordinary acres according to the prescribed scale" Section 32-B prescribes for returns by the person having land in excess of the ceiling Section 32-D provide that the Collector shall prepare a draft statement in the manner prescribed showing among other particulars, the total area of land owned or held by a person, the specific parcels of land which the landowner may retain by way of his permissible limit or exemption from ceding and also the surplus area Section 32-E provides for the vesting of the surplus area in the State of Government. Section 32F gives power to the Collector to take possession of the surplus area. Section 32-G provides for principles of payment of compensation and S. 32-J for the disposal of the surplus area. Then comes S. 32-K(1) with which we are mainly concerned and the relevant part of it is in these terms :-

"32-K (1) -- The provisions of S. 32A shall of apply to -

(i).......................................

(ii)........................................

(iii)...........................................

(iv) efficiently managed farms which consist of compact blocks on which heavy investment or permanent structural improvements have been made and whose break-up is likely to lead to a fall in production