The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, was held to be valid and saved by Article 31A of the Constitution as it aimed to modify rights in estates, imposed reasonable restrictions on the rights of individuals, and was in conformity with the directive principles of the Constitution.

Khosla, J.

1. In these two petitions (Civil Writ Application No. 162 or 1953 and Civil Writ Application No. 163 of 1953) the validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punjab Act No. 10 of 1953) hereinafter called the Act, as amended by Ordinance No. 5 of 1953, had been challenged before us. There are several other petitions pending in this Court in which the same point has been raised and the fate of those petitions will depend upon our decision in the two petitions with which this order deals.

The petitioners are landlords against whom their tenants have filed applications under Section 10 of the Act. The applicants were ejected tenants, and they wished to be restored to their tenancy according to the terms of the Act. The landlords contend that the Act is ultra vires the Constitution and pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the officials concerned not to entertain the application of the tenants.

2. Mr. Chatterjee who argued the case on behalf of the landlords based his attack on several grounds but before stating these grounds or discussing them it is necessary to set out briefly the aims and objects of the Act and the manner in which the Legislature has sought to achieve them.

3. The Act is called the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and the preamble states that, the Act is intended to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters. The-main provisions of the Act are that landlords cannot in effect eject their tenants except for reasons mentioned in Section 9 which are :

(a) failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause ;

(b) the rent being in arrears at the commencement of the Act;

(c) failure on the part o[ the tenant to cultivate the land tc the extent customary in the locality;

(d) user of tenancy in a manner which renders-the land unlit for the purpose for which, he holds it;

(e) subletting on the part of the tenant;

(f) refusal on the part of the tenant to execute a qabuliyat or a patta;

(g) if the landlord is what is described as a small land-owner.

The maximum holding is limited to 30 standard acres except in the case of displaced persons who may hold up to a maximum of 50 standard acres. Certain tenants are given the right to pre-empt the land in case the land-owner wishes to sell it and certain tenants have even been given the right to purchase the land. The tenants right to water is guaranteed and the amount of maximum rent is fixed at one-third of the produce. Tenancy during the period of its duration is heritable.

There are certain other incidental provisions but the important ones have been set out above. It will thus be seen that the Act makes the position of the tenants much securer than it was under the old law. The Act is further intended to prevent large holdings and the concentration of land in a few individuals. Where a land-owner owns land in excess of the maximum limit permissible under the Act his holding is reduced, but the Act does not have the effect of confiscating any part of his property.

4. The objections raised against the Act may be stated briefly as follows:

(1) The Act contravenes the provisions of Article 19(f) of the Constitution inasmuch as it prevents the land-owner from enjoying, controlling and disposing of his property freely;

(2) It offends against the provisions of Article 31 inasmuch as it deprives him of his property against his will. His property can be preempted by the tenant (Section 17) and can even, be acquired by him against his wishes (Section 13);

(3) The Act offends against the provisions of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution inasmuch as it deprives the landlord of his property and the Act makes no provision for the payment of compensation to him;

(4) The statute nullifies retrospectively bona fide gifts, exchanges and family settlements made by the land-owner and therefore abrogates vested rights and interests (Section 16);

(5) The Act offends against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution ina