B. J. DIVAN, P. N. BHAGWATI, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions challenge the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 The petitions divide themselves in two groups:- one group consisting of Special Civil Applications Nos. 977/68 1533 and 630/69 relates to lands situate in three villages namely Rampur Dhori and Saroda and the other group consisting of Special Civil Applications Nos. 218/69 and 220 to 222 of 1969 relates to lands situate in village Sarendi. The facts giving rise to the two groups of petitions are a little different though most of the questions of law are common and it is therefore necessary to state the facts separately in relation to each group. But before we do so we may point out one common feature in all the petitions namely that in each of these villages at one time or the other the scheme of consolidation of holdings was prepared by the Consolidation Officer and confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner or the State Government as the case may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act and consolidated holdings were allotted to owners of lands under the relevant consolidation scheme.

( 2 ) ). In Special Civil Application No. 977/68 which may be taken as a representative petition of the first group Survey No. 59 which was consolidated holding was allotted to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 under the consolidation scheme and by a registered sale deed dated 11th May 1964 the petitioner purchased this land from respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for the price of Rs. 3 0 The Assistant Collector on coming to know about the sale instituted a proceeding namely Consolidation Case No. 6 of 1968 under sec. 9 read with sec. 31 and issued notice dated 13th May 1968 to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 calling upon them to show cause why the sale should not be declared void and fine to the extent of Rs. 250/not imposed on respondents No. 3 to 5. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Collector in response to the show cause notice and submitted his reply but the Assistant Collector by an order dated 25th July 1968 declared the sale to be void imposed a fine of Rs. 75/on respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and directed that possession of the land be restored to the original owners namely respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Similar order was also passed by the Assistant Collector in Special Civil Application No. 1533/68 while in Special Civil Application No. 630/69 only a show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner thereupon filed Special Civil Applications Nos. 977/68 and 1533/68 challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Special Civil Application No. 630/69 challenging the validity of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.

( 3 ) SO far as Special Civil Applications Nos. 218 and 220 to 222 of 1969 are concerned the scheme of consolidation in village Sarendi was confirmed by the State Government on 29th March 1956 and possession of consolidated holdings was taken by persons entitled to possession of the same under the scheme on 6/7th May 1956. The sale of the land in Special Civil Application No. 218/69 was effected on 20th April 1956 while in Special Civil Application No. 220/69 the sale of the land was effected on 19th March 1957. The Assistant Collector in each of these cases issued notice to the transferors and the transferees and after hearing them made orders declaring the sale in each case to be void under sec. 9 read with sec. 31 and imposed fine on the transferors. No directions were given by the Assistant Collector for handing over possession of the respective lands to the transferors since the transferees were tenants of the lands and were as such entitled to continue in possession of the lands. The lands forming the subject matter of Special Civil Applications Nos. 221 and 222 of 1969 were sold on 15th March 1956 and 18th July 1955 respectively before the consolidation scheme came

Click Here to Read the rest of this document