Judgment

GROVER, J. :- In these appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court the main question requiring determination relates to the scope, ambit and true interpretation of S. 7 read with S. 11 of the East Punjab Utilization of Land Act, 1949, hereinafter called the Act .

2. We need state the facts only in C. A. 825/72 (Dasaudha Singh & others v. State of Haryana). The Collector Karnal leased out an area of 1154 Acres in villages Pehowa and Murtzapur jointly to Karnal Co-operative Society Ltd. Pehowa and the Lyalpur Co-op. Joint Farming Society, Murtapur under S. 5 of the Act. Owing to some dispute which arose subsequent to the lease between the two societies the Registrar gave an award on the matter having been referred to him for arbitration. According to that award the entire land in village Murtzapur and 172 Acres of land in village Pehowa were given to the Lyalpur Society and the remaining 357 Acres of land in village Pehowa to the Karnal Society. The lease was originally for a certain number of years but it was extended for a period of twenty years which is the maximum period for which a lease could be granted under the Act. By a notice dated May 17, 1971 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kaithal, issued a notice to the lessees under S. 7 of the Act. In the notice it was stated, inter alia, that the original owners had applied for the return of the land leased out as the period of the lease had expired. The lessees were required to handover possession to the original owners. On June 15, 1971 the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order directing the Tehsildar to take possession of the land and give actual possession thereof to the original owners. These proceedings were challenged in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court disposed of the writ petition together with the other writ petitions which had been filed on similar grounds by a common judgment dismissing all the petitions.

3. In order to appreciate the points in controversy the relevant provisions of the Act may be referred to as also the background in which the Act came to be enacted. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill large tracts of fertile land had remained uncultivated due to the negligence or absence of displaced local landlords. The policy of the Government was not to leave any cultivate land unsown as far as possible which was necessary to attain self-sufficiency in the matter of food. If, timely action was not taken a large portion of the population would have to face starvation after 1950 when it was proposed to stop all imports of foodgrains from abroad. The Government had tried its best to persuade the landlords to cultivate the lands. There was, however, likelihood of large tracts of fertile and cultivable lands remaining unsown during Rabi 1949-50. The Bill which was introduced was, therefore, aimed at bringing about all available land in the East Punjab under fodder and food-grain crops.

4. The definitions of "land", "owner" and "tenant" as given in S. 2 are as follows :

(e) "Land" means land which is not urban land is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village but does not include land which is leased by Government or Custodian under any law other than this Act".

(f) "Owner" means a person having a proprietary right in the land and includes an allottee, a usufructuary mortgate or a lessee".

(h) "Tenant" means a person to whom land is leased by the Collector under the provisions of this Act".

By virtue of S. 3 the Collector could issue a notice to the owner of any land which had not been cultivated for the specified period and if he did not find the explanation of the land-owner to be satisfactorry he could take possession of the same for the purpose of the Act. This the Collector could do notwithstanding any law to the contrary. Section 4 provided for payment of compensation where possession of any land had been taken under S. 3. Under S. 5 the Collector, after t