The classification in a rule must be based on a reasonable nexus with the object of the rule, and any classification that is arbitrary or unrelated to the object of the rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

BERI, J.

( 1 ) THESE 268 special appeals indicated in the Annexure I to this judgment preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgments of the learned single Judge, of different dates though of identical contents, whereby he allowed 268 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India holding that the Rajas-than colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules 1967 (hereinafter called "the Rajasthan Canal Rules) were void being inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge further directed that the State should frame the Rajasthan Canal Rules in the light of the observations contained in his judgment.

( 2 ) LANDLESS tenants who were in occupation of lands in the Rajasthan Canal Project area were holding the lands on temporary basis and they challenged the validity of many of the Rajas-than Canal Rules but at the time of arguments confined their attack to Rules 9, 16 and 19 only. The learned single Judge found that Rule 9 was valid because the classification between pre-1955 and post-1955 holders of land was correlated to a reasonable nexus arising out of the date when the Rajasthan tenancy Act came into force. He, however, held that rule 19 was invalid because the State prescribed different standards for allotting land to families in Bhakra proiect and those in the Rajasthan Canal Area. The learned single Judge also found rule 7 (x) and (xi) invalid when read in conjunction with Rule 19. The latter part of rule 16 was also declared invalid because the rule ordained that partitions effected after 15-10-1955 shall be ignored because it was arbitrary, And lastly the learned judge held that be-cause Rule 7 planned out reservations the functioning of the rules 16 and 19 was dependent on it therefore he declared the entire body of the rajasthan Canal Rules as invalid.

( 3 ) MR. G. C. Kasliwal, former Advocate General, appearing for the State urged that the entire body of the Rajasthan Canal Rules could not be struck down because they were not challenged and he had no opportunity to meet the arguments. Moreover, he urged that the rules relating to sale under which many transactions had already taken place would be upset on account of the declaration of all the rules invalid and would work hardship. The second submission of Mr. Kasliwal was that Rule 19 (a) (i) alone was challenged and therefore, it was erroneous for the learned single Judge to have considered the attack on Rule 19 (a) (iii) regarding the landless tenants. He further submitted that the learned single Judge incorrectly invoked Article 14 and compared Bhakra landless with other landless tenants because their conditions were different. If comparisons had to be made the temporary tenants of Bhakra alone should have been compared with the landless in Rajasthan. His next submission was that Rule 16 was valid because the date prior to which separation or partition was not recognised was relatable to the promulgation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. And he lastly urged that the petitioners had no locus standi to maintain the petition,

( 4 ) MR. Mridul learned counsel for the respondents, stated at the Bar that he was "not interested in assailing the entirety of the Rajasthan Canal Rules" and he abandoned that attack. He further urged that the plea regarding invalidity of Rule 19 (a) (iii) was permitted to be raised by the learned single Judge notwithstanding the typographical error and it being a pure point of law could have been allowed and was rightly allow ed to be contested. He submitted that Rule 19 as a whole was challenged as ground No. 1 at Page 24 of the petition and therefore, it was open to him to challenge Rules 19 (a) (i) and 19 (a) (iii), and moreover they were integrally connected. He supported the judgment of the learned single judge regarding Rules 16 and 19. And lastly he urged that new Rules have now been framed in 1971 changing the scheme of allotment and the conte