1. This is a writ petition filed by Kesho Nath Bakshi praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus and for declaring Act No. XXXIII of 1966 void with the further prayer to ask the competent authority to proceed with the revenue case Badri and others Vs. Jethu and others pending with the Assistant Commissioner, Jammu.

2. The petitioner has averred that he is a retired Government servant. He, in order to make his two ends meet applied for ejectment of tenants at will and protected ones on the ground of personal cultivation as provided under section 49 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act of 1980. The case was being tried by the Assistant Commissioner Jammu when under an Ordinance followed by an Act in the Assembly the hearings in such cases were stayed in the year 1966. The stay proceedings for ejectment, it is averred, affects the fundamental rights of the petitioner in as much as it interfere with his rights to use the property and right to follow any occupation or trade and also the right to live. The order was passed maliciously in order to deprive the peti­tioner of his rights and this has created bad blood amongs the landlord and the tenants.

3. The State has filed objections through the Additional Advocate General. In these objections it is admitted that the petitioner has retried from Government service; that the petitioner alongwith other persons made an application under section 49 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act for ejectment of Jethu and others from his land. It is also admitted that the above application for ejectment was made under the provisions of Ordinance 10 of 1966 which was later on replaced by Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy (Stay of Ejectment Proceedings) Act of 1966. The above Act, it is averred, is constitutionally valid under the pro­visions of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India as it is a piece of agrarian reform legislation meant for the welfare of tillers of the agricultural lands. At the time the above Ordinance and subsequently the Act were passed the question of fixing limit in the area of agriculture holdings owned by the proprietors was under the active considera­tion of the respondent. In order to maintain status quo and with a view to fix the size of agricultural holdings it was considered necessary to pass the above Ordinance and then the Act. Now as the bill fixing of side of agricultural hold­ings in the legislature of Jammu and Kashmir has been in­troduced, till the above bill becomes law it is necessary that status quo in respect of the position of tillers of land is main­tained. These steps were taken in order to do social justice to the cultivators of the agricultural and save them from becoming landless which would otherwise adversely affect the interests of general public.

4. I have heard the arguments in the case.

5. It appears that the petitioner previously also filed writ petition asking the court not to extend the date of stay of suits for ejectment of tenants under Section 49 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act of 1980. Almost the same aver­ments which have been made in the present petition were made in the previous petition with this modification that in the present petition the petitioner challenges the constitu­tional validity of the Ordinance and the Act whereas the previous petition was directed against the extension in the date of the Ordinance. When that petition came up before the court for admission, Honble Jaswant Singh J. recorded the following order: -

"Heard the petitioner who is present in person. A writ of the nature sought for cannot be issued by the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine."

6. After the aforesaid petition was dismissed, the petitioner filed the present petition.

7. The petitioner himself argued the petition before me. His main argument is that the Ordinance which has been replaced by the Act adversely affects his fundamental right to use the land for personal cultivation which is a right conferred on him to f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document