Reservation of land for the Panchayat Farm without following the prescribed scale and without the consent of the rightholders is illegal and contravenes Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution.

R.S.Sarkaria, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner is a rightholder of village Mahuana Bodla, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore. On the 12th April, 1960, the State Government issued Notification No. 57-9/6887, announcing a proposal to consolidate the holdings in this village under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This notification was published on 17th July, 1960. The Consolidation Officer (Respondent No. 2) framed the Scheme of consolidation on 30th December, 1961. It was approved by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, on the 14th February, 1962. Repartition in pursuance of the scheme was announced on the 10th June, 1962. In this scheme, the Consolidation Officer arbitrarily reserved an area of 603 kanals and 2 marlas for common purposes of the village, purporting to act under Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). This area was set apart by making a pro rata deduction from all the rightholders of the village without payment of any compensation. No scale for making such deduction has been prescribed by the State. It is, therefore, alleged that this deduction made under Rule 16(ii) was illegal. It also amounted to compulsory acquisition of land, contrary to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution of India. It is further alleged that the scheme offends against Section 23 of the Act as it existed before and after the amendment of 1962, inasmuch as it fixes a date for transfer of possession of the new holdings to be charged out on repartition. The petitioner alleges that he was entitled to remain in possession of his holding till the commencement of the agricultural year following the preparation of new record of rights. It is maintained that the amendment made in Section 23 of the Act by Punjab Act No. 25 of 1962 could not apply retrospectively to the consolidation and repartition which had taken place before its coming into force.

3. It is also alleged that the scheme of consolidation was bad in law, inasmuch as it provided in clause 13 "that possession of the vacant lands will be transferred immediately after the repartition under Section 21(1) of the Act, and as regards the standing crops the possession will be delivered as soon as the crops are gathered and the lands become vacant, and that if any rightholder refuses to vacate the land, he will be deprived of his standing crop if Annexure C. It is said that this provision offends even against the amended Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a writ of certiorari, quashing the aforesaid provisions of the scheme relating to the reservation of the land for the Panchayat and other common purposes, and with regard to the delivery of possession.

4. The State has not chosen to put in any return. Similarly, respondent No. 3 has not put in any written statement, though Shri Dalip Singh Kang has appeared to oppose this petition on his behalf.

5. Mr. N.L. Dhingra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed three points before me. Firstly, it is contended that the provision in the scheme reserving 332 kanals 14 marlas for the Panchayat Farm is hit by the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1967 Cur.L.J. 43-D, and must be struck down as invalid.

6. Shri Dalip Singh Kang has feebly argued that Annexure A did not show that any reservation was made for the income of the Gram Panchayat; that reservation for other village common purposes, such as roads, ponds, hospitals, etc. could be validly made under the Act; and that the reservation for the Panchayat Farm did not necessarily mean reservation for the income of the Gram Panchayat.

7. It appears to me that the argument of Mr. Dhingra must prevail. Mr. Dhingra,