Section 6 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act (38 of 1949) is ultra vires Art. 13 (2) of the Constitution as infringing the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed to them under Art. 14 of the Constitution.

R.S.Narula, J.

1. I propose to dispose of by this judgment 97 writ petitions which were heard together along with Letters Patent Appeal No. 762 of 1970. These writ petitions have to be divided into four groups in order to facilitate reference to the separate set of arguments advanced in respect of each group. The prayer in all these petitions is to quash the orders of the Collector, Kaithal, district Karnal, determining the leases of the respective parcels of land of which possession had been taken by the Collector under Section 3 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act (38 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act), and which land had therefore been leased out to different persons for a period of twenty years. The first group is comprised of 57 petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 1376, 1377, 1383 to 1386, 1395, 1416, 1432, 1433, 1459, 1471, 1482, 1491, 1521, 1549, 1550, 1559, 1573, 1604, 1607, 1651 to 1654, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1694, 1713, 1752, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1791, 1817, 1836, 1944, 2000, 2001, 2438, 2720, 2749, 2820 to 2822, 3168, 3704, 3705, 3786, 3887, 3899, 3942, 3943, 3990 to 3992 of 1970) in which it is admitted that leases had been granted to the respective writ-petitioners under Section 5 of the Act and were cancelled by the impugned orders of the Collector in writing passed under Section 6 of the Act. In some of these cased the lessees went up in appeal to the Commissioner has been impugned. In the second group I will take up seven cases (Civil Writs 1346, 1347, 1351, 1381, 1396, 1469 and 2439 of 1970) in which land had been taken over by the Collector under Section 3 and leased out under Section 5, but without executing any written lease-deed. In all the cases falling in this group, written orders have been passed by the Collector determining "the lease-deeds". The third group is of 29 petitions, i.e. Civil Writs 1483, 1490, 1496 to 1504, 1522 to 1526, 1560, 1634 to 1639, 1991, 2185, 2362, 2649, 2689 and 2836 of 1970. In all the cases falling in this group, the land was taken over by the Collector under Section 3, but had been leased out under Section 5 to persons other than the writ-petitioners though it is claimed by most of the petitioners that they are in actual possession of the land. According to the respondents, these petitioners have come into unauthorised possession or been inducted by the original lessees as sub-tenants in violation of the terms of the respective leases. In the fourth group fall the remaining four petitions (Civil Writs 1394, 1643, 1883 and 2245 of 1970) which have certain special distinctive features of their own.

2. So far as the cases in the first group are concerned, following points were urged by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners :-

-

(i) The orders are wholly void, in-executable and non est as Section 6 of the Act under which the Collector purports to have passed those orders is unconstitutional as it is hit by Art. 13 (2) of the Constitution on account of its being violative of the guarantee of equal protection of laws contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution;

(ii) Even if it is assumed that Section 6 of the Act is valid, the leases of the petitioners could not be terminated under that provision before the expiry of the fixed period of twenty years for which the leases had been granted before the enactment of Section 6 in 1957;

(iii) Even on the facts alleged by the respondents, no order under Section 6 of the Act could be passed determining the leases of the petitioners as they had not incurred forfeiture of the leases, three being such default as would justify the determination of the leases. Inasmuch as there was no contravention of any of the terms of the leases, there could be no question of any action being taken under Section 6. In any case, a single default in payment of rent could not amount to contravention of the terms of the leases;

(iv) In case it was found that any lessee had failed to pay lease-money within the prescribed time, it was the duty of the