Sections 22 and 24 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, were violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, as they conferred unguided and absolute discretion on the Collector to order immediate re-entry and possession of land without compensation, and excluded the jurisdiction of civil courts.

B.P. Beri, J.-These appeals are directed against a iudgment of the learned Single Judge dated July 27, 1972, but. it is based on the reasons given in the iudgment dated April 18. 1972 in 492 writ petitions, relating to lands occupied by persons in Rajasthan Canal Area.

2. The appellants’ case is that the Jagirdar of Sattasar sranted in 1948. large chunks of land to the appellants and issued ‘sanads’ to them. The Sattasar Jaeir was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (Act VI of 1952] on August 15. 1954. The appellants Paid all amounts due against them by way of land revenue on the said lands from the years 1948 to 1955 and they became Khatedar. tenants within the meaning of the word in the Bikaner State Tenancy Act. The appellants also contend that the revenue or rent have been realised from them for the period from 1953 to 1962.

3. On October 15, 1955, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 (hereinafter called “the Tenancy Act”) came into force. Under Section 15 thereof , any Person who was a tenant became a Khate-dar tenant entitled to the rights under the Tenancy Act and the appellants claim that they acauired such rights. They further contend that their khatedari rights were confirmed by the Commissioner. Bikaner. by his order dated October 21. 1957. The appellants further say that the lands which were given to them by the sanad was ‘baniar’ (barren) and the appellants reclaimed and cleared the land for cultivation and started cultivation in the year 1948 and were in possession thereof till the date of their petition.

4. On March 17, 1958. Section 15-A was added to the Tenancy Act and it ordained that no khatedari rights would ever be deemed to have accrued to any occupant of the land in the Rajasthan Canal Area on any terms whatsoever notwithstanding anything contained in any law or document or in the Act and such lands shall be deemed to have been let out only temporarily.

5. Some of the tenants of the former Bikaner State challenged the vajiditv of Section 15-A of the Tenancy Act before this Court and by its iuds-ment dated July 18, 1962, it declared. Jassuram vs. State, AIR 1963 Raj 72, that the khatedari rights under Section 15 amounted to property which belonged to the petitioners and an acquisition of those rights under Section 15-A offended Article 31(2) of the Constitution and was ultra vires.

6. Again by Act No. 56 of 1958 the Tenancy Act was further amended whereby Section 15-A (2) was introduced. This sub-section provided that any person claiming that he possessed and was in eniovment of khatedari rights in any land referred to in Sub-section (1) because such land, had been let out to him permanently before the commencement of that Act may within four years from the date of such commencement and on payment of Court-fee of twenty five naye paise, apply to the Assistant Collector having iurisdiction, pravins for a declaration to that effect, and the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 15 shall apply to such application. The appellants say that they moved an application under Section 15-A (2) of the Tenancy Act on December 22, 1962 but the same remains undisposed of despite a Period of nearly ten years having lapsed.

7. By the 17th Amendment Act 1964 of the Constitution, which came into force on June 20, 1964, the Tenancy Act was included as item No. 65 (with an explanation added thereto) in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution which inclusion imparted the Tenancy Act an immunity from attack under Article 31-B of the Constitution.

8. That in May. 1969. the Government purported to auction away portions of the lands in possession and cultivation of the appellants. The appellants moved the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner. It is further contended that despite the favourable report of the Tehsildar, the Commissioner proceeded to auction the appellants’ lands. Thereupon the appellants filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Because the Government su