MADHAVAN NAIR, J. : - Writ Appeal No 30 of 1968 is by the State against the judgment*dated February 8, 1968, of Gopalan Nambiyar, J., in O. P. No. 4134 of 1967, wherein the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966, and Clause 4 of the Kerala Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966, have been held violative of Constitutional provisions. The two Orders will be referred to hereinbelow as 'the Levy Order' and 'the Declaration Order' adopting the short-names used by the learned Judge.

* Reported in 1968 Ker LT 223.

2. The petitioners in the abovesaid O. P. (a mother and son) are admittedly cultivators of paddy in 30.49 acres of land - according to the State

they cultivate 34.91 acres - who challenged the Levy Order which compels them to sell paddy to Government on a graduated scale according to acreage against payment of price not exceeding the maximum price fixed by the Government, and the Declaration Order under which they might be compelled to declare the paddy in their possession or control and to sell it to the Government, as unconstitutional. By consent of parties, this O. P. was heard by the learned Judge, along with 720 others that challenged the above-said Orders as also the Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1965, and the Kerala Rice (Maximum Prices) Order, 1965 - hereinafter 'the Maximum Prices Orders' - on "the question of the constitutional validity of the Orders" as a "preliminary point" and by a judgment common for all the 721 O. Ps. the learned Judge has held:

"The expression 'cultivator' has been defined as 'one who actually cultivates any land with paddy.' On the definition, it seems to signify one who actually puts his hand to the plough, and the plough to the soil. It seems also immaterial that the land he cultivates is one in which he has himself no proprietary or beneficial interest. If this be the meaning to be attributed to the term 'cultivator' the working of the Levy Order would be reduced to an absurdity. It would mean that even a servant or labourer of an owner of land is to be regarded as a cultivator to be dealt with under the provisions of the Order.......... (T) he meaning of the term 'cultivator' may range from the one who actually puts the plough to the soil to the one who is stationed far away from the lands and who directs or supervises the cultivation or causes the same to be done by members of his family, dependants or relations, or with his own or hired labour. To say that 'cultivator' means one who actually cultivates any land is to lay down no definite standard as to the circumstances under which the different categories of persons would be answerable for the levy. As the definition of the term 'cultivator' as given in the Levy Order is artificial and arbitrary, and as the same is inextricably woven throughout the texture of the Levy Order, the entire Order must be held to be affected by the vice of the definition.

... Under the Maximum Prices Orders 1965, it is the case of the State that the maximum prices have been fixed so as to ensure a reasonable margin of profit to the cultivator, and taking into account the burden on the consumer. Granted that this is so it is a well known fact that the prices of rice and paddy have been spiralling in this State in the past few years. I can find no justification for denying the cultivator for all time the benefit of any increase in the market price of rice and paddy over the level fixed by the Maximum Prices Orders 1965....... The Maximum Prices Orders themselves contain no indication that the Maximum Prices fixed by the Schedule therein are capable of periodical revision and adjustment. That the market value has for all time been tied down to the price fixed in the Maximum Prices Orders is a matter that pertains to the principles of compensation and not to its adequacy. It must therefore be held that Clause 7 of the Levy Order in so far as it imposes a ceiling on the price to be paid, fails to speci