Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution protects laws providing for the acquisition of estates or rights therein, or the extinguishment or modification of such rights, only if they are directed to agrarian reform.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether Article 31-A(1)(a) provides an impenetrable protective shield around the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 against the constitutional attack launched on the basis of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution, is the solitary though substantial question arising in this petition.

2. The facts are neither in dispute nor of any great relevance in a matter so patently legal. Nevertheless a passing reference to them is inevitable, though hardly any was made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners claim to have purchased agricultural land, now within the municipal limits of Kaithal vide thirteen registered sale-deeds executed during the months of September and October 1971 for a consideration of Rs. 15,520/-. It is averred that the purchased land was in the actual possession of the different shareholders of the village Shamilat Deh who were therefore, entitled to transfer the same. The petitioners claim that thereafter they were put in and continued to be in actual peaceful possession of the land purchased by them.

3. The Haryana Legislature enacted the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act) with effect from the 26th of January, 1973. By virtue of its provisions the land purchased by the petitioners, being part of the Shamilat Deh, are sought to be vested in the Municipal Committee of Kaithal without payment of any compensation whatsoever. It is alleged that the respondent-Municipal Committee and respondent No. 3 the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal, are threatening to interfere with the title and peaceful possession of the petitioners on the ground that the land purchased by them has passed into the ownership of respondent No. 2. Apprehensive of further hostile action against them, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition to assail the very constitutionality of the Act.

4. Now for a true appreciation of the contentions raised on either side, some reference to the legislative history and precedent in connection therewith is both inevitable and in fact necessary. The constitutional validity of an analogous statute, namely, the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, as amended, was assailed before a Full Bench of this Court in Kishan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 Punj 1, and was upheld. The correctness of that view was again sought to be put to test following the decision of their Lordships in the well-known case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni V/s. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080. A Full Bench of five Judges in Jagat Singh Didar Singh V/s. State of Punjab. AIR 1962 Punj 221, reiterated the validity of the statute.

5. The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act was enacted in the year 1961 and on the formation of the State of Haryana on the 1st of November, 1966 it continued to hold sway over the territories of the newly created State. The validity of this statute had earlier also been the subject-matter of challenge in a number of cases and the same was upheld primarily on the basis of the aforementioned Full Bench decision which had repelled the attack against the constitutionality of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The issue was carried before the final Court with regard to the vires of the Consolidation Act, Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and the Security of Land Tenures Act and in Ranjit Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 632, their Lordships held that all these provisions were part of a general scheme of agrarian reforms and were consequently protected by Article 31-A of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of these statutes and the correctness of the earlier Full Bench decisions of this Court were consequently upheld.

6. Following, by and large, the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) A