Baljeet Singh vs State of Punjab

Swaran Singh Boparai, F.C., IAS.

This is a revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, against the ex parte order dated 6.11.1984 of the Collector, Agrarian, Ferozepur, deciding the objection against notice under Section 9(i) for taking possession of surplus land, and also against the order dated 17.2.1986 of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, where by the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and order of the Collector, Agrarian was upheld.

The brief facts of the case are that the surplus area case of Pirthi Singh s/o Lal Singh, etc. residents of village Roranwala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, was decided by the Collector, Agrarian, Ferozepur on 28.6.1961. The Collector, Agrarian, Ferozepur, ordered the utilisation of surplus land of village Roranwala, on 9.9.1974 and made allotment of that area. Feeling aggrieved by that order, Baljeet Singh and others, the present petitioners, preferred an appeal which was accepted on 2.2.1976 by the then Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, who set aside the order, dated 9.9.1974, observing as under :

"The Collector is, however, free to deal with the case in accordance with law. "

The Collector, then issued notice under Section 9(i) of the Punjab Lands Reforms Act, 1972, to the petitioners for delivering the possession of the land in dispute. The petitioners filed an objection on 24.81984. The Collector fixed the date for hearing as 6.11.1984, on which date the objection was rejected ex parte and it was ordered that action be taken under the provisions of section 9(ii) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Feeling aggrieved with the above order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division Ferozepur, which was dismissed on 17.2.1986. Hence the present revision petition.

Shri Ravinder Chopra, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioners appeared before me and contended that the surplus area case of the original landowner was decided in the year 1961 under the Punjab Law and the landowner died in the year 1973 and his land remained unutilised. He stated that mutation of inheritance of Sant Lal Singh, original landowner, bearing No. 1158, had been sanctioned on 9.9.1974 in favour of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, (widow), Narinder Singh, Prithi Singh, Balraj Singh (all adult sons on 24.1.1971), Paramjeet Kaur, Charanjeet Kaur, Sharnjeet Kaur (three daughters), his legal heirs. They are all entitled to full units. He contended that the allotment order passed by the Collector was challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and that appeal was accepted with the observation that land could vest only, if possession had been taken by the State, under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. He further contended that the landowner had died and succession opened. The land had remained unutilised. The legal heirs of the landowner had to be given benefit under the provisions of section 11(5) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, applying the ratio of Full Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ajit Kaur''s case, reported as 1980PLJ354. In support of his contention, he also placed reliance on 1981PLJ 259, 1982PLJ223 and 1989PLJ95. He finally argued that the petitioners purchased the land in dispute in the year 1969 and were still in possession of that land. He argued that the vendees stepped in to the shoes of the landowner and they had got every right to agitate the matter before the authorities.

Shri O.K. Puri, Senior State Counsel, appeared before me and stated that the case was to be redetermined under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 in view of the ratio of Ajit Kaur''s case. To court questions, if :

There was any other law in the country with the exception of surplus land, which is discriminatory on the basis of sex;

Is there any law, which prohibits a person to make accretion to his assets and is there any law, which bars the right of a minor son, a major/minor married daughter or a wife ?

To all these questions, the Senior State Counsel replied in the negative. He however, stated that the vires of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, was examined by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case of Sucha Singh Bajwa Versus the State of Punjab and their Lordships of Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court struck done the definition of "family" given in the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. That case was reported as 1974 PLJ page 168. But in an appeal filed, by the State, the Supreme Court of India reversed that judgment, which is reported as 1977PLJ139. He stated that the authorities were bound by he provisions of statute.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the sides, seen the record of the case and also perused the relevant case law. The facts reveal that Sant Lal Singh, predecessorininterest of Prithi Singh etc. was the big landowner. After this death, mutation No. 1158 was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs. Subsequently, surplus area case of Prithi Singh etc., the heirs of Sant Lal Singh, was decided by the then Collector, Ferozepur on 28.6.1061 under provisions of Punjab law. Subsequently, Collector, Ferozepur ordered the utilisation of surplus area of village Roranwali, Tehsil and Distt., Ferozepur on 9.9.1974. The present petitioners preferred an ''appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, assailing the Collector''s order regarding utilisation, dated 9.9.1974. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide order dated 2.2.1976, accepted the appeal and sent the case back to the Collector, Ferozepur, for dealing with that in accordance with law and while passing that order Ld. Commissioner against para 6 of his order, indicated the provision of section 8 of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. He observed as under :

"......... A plain reading of the above section reveals that the area already declared surplus under the provisions of old Act, which has not been utilised till the commencement of the New Act shall vest in the State Government on a date on which the possession is taken by the State Government or by any other authority on behalf of the State. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the Collector is not strictly, in accordance with law. Until and unless any land vests in the name of the State Government, the Collector has no jurisdiction to allot the same to the tenants. My this view further finds support by reading section 11(i) which is an under:

"The surplus area, which has been vested in the State Government under Section 8 shall be at the disposal of the State Government."

The Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur, then, issued, notices under Section 9(i) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and passed an ex parte order on 6.11.1984, whereby he rejected the objection of the petitioners and directed for the issuance of notice under Section 9(2) of the Act ibid. Feeling aggrieved with the above order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. The petitioners, in their appeal, among other grounds specifically took following two grounds as under :

That the appellants have not been given a proper opportunity of being heard.

That the appellants appeared on 6.11.1984, but they were told by the Reader of the Collector Agrarian that the file of the case had not been located and the date would be given to the appellants after locating the file. After that many times the appellants approached the court in order to learn about the date but no date was given to them. They were told that the file was not located.

I have gone through the Commissioner''s order, wherein the appellants''s counsel assailed the impugned order of the Collector on the grounds that the original landowner had died and as such, surplus area case had to be redetermined in the hands of his heirs and the appellants had not been heard by the Collector before passing the impugned order. The learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, avoided to adjudicate upon the first averment made by the appellant''s counsel. The Commissioner''s order is dated 17.2.1987, when plethora of authoritative judgments pronounced by the higher courts on above point, were available to him. The ratio of Ajit Kaur''s case reported as 1980PLJ354, is directly applicable to the instant case, as the benefit of inheritance had to be given to the heirs of Sant Lal Singh. I have also seen the Collector''s file. On its page No. 23, a photocopy of the sale deed dated 11.4.1969 is available. This sale deed reveals that the present petitioners purchased the land in dispute from Smt. Mohinder Kaur wife of Sant Lal Singh son of Munshi Ram through her husband Sant Lal Singh as her general attorney. The above sale deed bears the signatures of Sant Lal Singh, who resented the sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Ferozepur for registration. It amply shows that Smt. Mohinder Kaur was the mother of Prithi Singh etc. As per provisions laid down in the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, she was entitled to a separate unit as the mother does not fail in the definition of family given in the Land Reforms Act, 1972. Regarding the claim of vendees, apparently they have come in the shoes of the vendor and therefore, they have got every right to agitate the matter before the authorities to get justice. I fully agree with the petitioners Counsel that by applying law laid down by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ajit Kaur''s case reported as 1980PU page 354, the surplus area case had to be decided under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1972. The State Counsel has also conceded this position off law.

This Act contains strange provisions which are foreign to liberal though of ancient and modem India. It incorporates violations of the right of a category of persons a violation from which rest of Indians are immune. It distinguishes one Indian from another and makes only a limited Section of our Society subject to confiscatory law. It inflicts itself most grievously only on family of a particular section of society. It distinguishes one member of the family from another and extinguishes the right of one qua the other. It excludes totally the mother from family, once her husband is dead and if she has not inherited any portion. Contribution of mother of society has been described very aptly :

"at whose breast humanity is nourished in whose lap civilizations are cradled."

This Act instead of cradling and consoling the mother on her bereavement and loss of a husband actually excludes her from the definition of family. Modem Indian legislators have thrown mother and woman as a whole on the streets and out courts have acquiesced. And again this has been done to the mother of only a select group. This uneducated, retarded and retrograde Act further interferes with the ultimate physical growth and development of a human being by restricting him to a right on a particular date related to his age at that time. If he is an adult on that date, he is entitled to have a full unit of seven hectares to himself. God forbid that he be a minor on that date, then he is not entitled to a separate unit. As far as our legislatures are concerned he will never grow up after that date and they therefore subject him to that damnation for the rest of his life. In ancient China, the concept of beauty visualised only small feet. Daughters were, therefore, dressed in shoes made of steel so that their feet may not grow. Our legislators have thus put an iron jacket on a human''s growth and development based on a silly date after which they do not see him grow and deserve a full unit. This injury again has been done to the minor sons of a particular section of society only.

The section of people thus discriminated by this Act are those who own or cultivate land as their economic base. These are people who have been true to their motherland. They have stuck to their land if respective of whose hordes they have had to fight or suffer. They have stood by their motherland, fought for it, died for it and if neither was possible, they have suffered for it. These people have not run into the high mountains showing a clean pair of heels to the avaricious aggressor. They have fed and continue to feed the hungry millions and those who have been fed by them have paid back by castigating them to a secondary position by applying a law which is not applicable to themselves. They have deprived them of rights which are considered fundamental to growth and development of the majority of our society but considered unnecessary in their case. No other section of Indian Society been deprived of these rights. There are no limits for the vest majority; they may develop and touch the sky but those landed must suffer limitations of holdings, of age, of sex, of human relationships, of being married or not at a particular time. This prejudicial bent of mind, line of action has to go from our statute books so that we can be seen for a fair and equitable society. We boast of an ancient society, culture and civilization, but that did not contain such prejudicial laws. These laws became restrictive later. We have therefore, corrected those laws. I am referring to the `Varna'' system. Similarly this Act has to be corrected as it is had in it is present form. The courts have to stand up and not coalesce.

Independent India gave upto itself a Constitution. That Constitution contains a chapter on Fundamental Rights. Rights which are fundamental to the growth of a human being. But these have been denied in this enactment, denied to a particular society, to its women, to is minor, to is mothers and sisters. Rape is a shocking word but undoubtedly the Constitution of India has been raped. As a proof thereof, a Schedule IX has been attached to the Constitution, which precludes land related legislations from being called to question in our courts of law. The message delivered is that everyone in the country had fundamental rights and can have them implemented through the highest court of law, but not the land based. It must be set right.

The glaring faults of this law which are not to be found in any other statute of the country are enumerated below. Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 are the offending provisions :

(i) The woman as a person has been denied the right of equality based on sex. The adult male son is entitled to a full unit but the adult daughter may have nothing at all. It is not necessary that a daughter must marry; she may not marry. In any case her succession right is as good as the son''s. If he is entitled to a full unit, so is she. If a landowner has no son and let us say ten adult daughters, all unmarried, he would not be allowed even one extra full unit.

(ii) If she (daughter) is married, she is denied even the fractional amount. This is wrong as discussed above.

(iii) The wife cannot hold her own land as an individual but it must be merged with the husband''s and then limited for a whole family and not per individual. In other words, the choice given to a woman landowner is that she can either retain her husband or her land. This is unworthy of Indian Statute Book and has to go.

(iv) In no other law is property dealt with family as a holding unit. The holding unit is with reference to every and each individual. HUF under Hindu Law provides an additional capacity to hold property/income apart from individual, capacity.

(v) Under the Hindu laws, an individual''s full right as an individual is established and recognised from the day he is conceived in the womb. In the law referred to in this judgment, he develops a full right only on attaining the age of 18 and that with relation to a fixed date, on 2411971. This is very wrong.

(vi) Anybody who was not eighteen on 2411971 but, say only 17 years of age on 2411971 loses his full right for all times to come, punishing him and his progeny, literally and depriving them for all times to come. This is not possible as it amounts to denial of equal opportunity.

(vii) If the husband dies, it is the male progeny who will form the unit for computation of his holding. If the widow has not inherited a portion from her husband, the definition of family does not include the widowed lady. She is thus denied even the fractional addition which is allowed upto a maximum of three children. This is inhuman and yet is part of Indian law. It has to go.

This crooked law has, therefore, fractured the social fabric of our society. Indian Society is not equal since independence. There are those privileged, who are entitled to enjoy fundamental rights and can seek redressal in courts, in case their rights are violated. And there are those, who have been deprived of their fundamental rights and they have been conveyed through Schedule IX that the unconstitutionality.of this Act is not redressable in a Court of law. The law further distinguishes mala fide between the male member and the female member of the family. It distinguishes most heinously between a married female and an unmarried female in the family. It strikes the family as under by laying down that an adult male member would have a full unit and a minor son would only be entitled to a fractional addition and not a full unit, all with reference to a date 2411971. Time has come to a stop, in free India for the landed on that date. That date is now like the pole star, which guides everyone on the path to malevolence, viciousness, prejudice and damnation. It has no equal in the Jurisprudence of the modern world. What the law has done to the nourisher of the family i.e. the mother, I have already elaborated above. The Act has thus completely fractured our social structure and has resulted in social injustice. Our courts have refused to assess this Act solely because it has been put in the dark Schedule. Earlier also the courts have determined to assess and adjudicate such Acts but now for some time, the Courts have taken courage to look into those laws which have affected social justice. Nowhere else has social justice been fractured and our social structure destroyed as in this Act. Theoretically the right of half the population of India i.e. woman has been denied. The courts must, therefore, do their duty, look at the law critically and strike it down. This law is highly prejudicial and despotic and therefore, deserves to be erased from the Country''s Statute Book.

There must have been a strong star on the horizon of India when the country became independent which has swayed us from our inherited values like faith in God, in the country''s many religions, in its ancient culture. We instead decided to follow an ungodly state. We were taken in by the elaborate windowdressing of that huge though atheistic state. Our new leaders were received in the West with lot of reserve and only at the threshold of their house. But this monolithic State broke all protocol, transported their highest officials to the landing stairs of our VIP aircraft, state transported all labour from factories to the roadsides to wave flags and kisses at our leaders. The happy caravan had hardly passed, when the waving crowds were put back into the state buses and transported back to factories for resuming their work. This was heady stuff and the lust of our ego was huge. We, therefore, got carried away and began to imitate them. But it is here that our monumental lack of character is most highlighter. Whereas the Soviets had done away altogether with the concept of private property and discriminated not in favour of the shopkeeper'' the industrialist, the male or between various professions, we went by our prejudices and tried to enforce socialism only in the landed class. The shop boy did not develop a right in the shop where he worked, the worker not in the factory, nobody developed any right anywhere merely by working there. Except on land. This economic hocuspocus and indeterminate political mumbo jumbo has to give way to stable principles an equitable approach which could bind our society and not sunder it apart. The Soviets had intellectual integrity and they just divested everyone of private property, cutting across the board. No exception was made at all. In our country, this discriminatory law has been promulgated only to confiscate the property of one class only. While Constitution has been allowed to protect all other classes, in this case, the Constitution has been bypassed by adding a schedule to enumerate these legislations which are forbidden to be contested as violative of the Constitution. Article 31B read with Schedule IX is thus a proclamation of unconstitutionality of this enactment and that which is unconstitutional cannot be allowed to subsist. The Constitution has stopped to operate as far this class is concerned. In my opinion, it is wrong and bad, both.

I am surprised and shocked that this discriminatory and unconstitutional Act has been allowed to operate in the land of Punjab, where woman has been placed at a very high pedestal as an equal to man. It should be a matter of pride for Punjab and the whole country that Sikh women were the first in the world to get the right to vote. This happened in 1925 under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act when suffragettes were still fighting for their right to vote in the socalled most enlightened societies of the west. Since the legislation under discussion deprives woman of her equality with man, it is against our teachings, our culture, our system and is at any rate violative of the Constitution and is, therefore, a bad law and should not be implemented.

As per definition of a person given in subsection 10 of section 3 of Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972, word "family" has been included in the definition of a person. As per subsection 4 of section 3, "family" in relation to a "person" means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be of such person and his or her minor children, other than married minor daughter. The limit of permissible area for a family has been indicated in subsection 2(a) of Section 4 as seven hectares of first quality land, which is approximately 17 St. As. and 8 Units. If prior to the commencement of Land Reforms Act, 1972, the person, his wife and minor children had been the owners of 17 St. Acres each, they were exempted from the provisions of Punjab Law but on account of the new legislation, their land to the extent of approximately 67 St. Acres and 8 units, was to be snatched as the minors had got no right to retain a separate unit of 7 Hectares and their holdings are to be clubbed with the holding of their father. Likewise the land of wife has to be clubbed with the holding of her husband.

A landowner having 7 hectares of first quality land, cannot make accretion to his landed property the provisions contained in Section 5(1) and Section 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 clearly show that the `person'' is prohibited to hold land in addition to his permissible area (7 Hectares of first quality land) in future, even on lease, till his son becomes adult. He is, as such unable to make addition to source of his livelihood. The present Act, therefore, is not only discriminatory and unconstitutional but also deprives one section of society of the rights which are available to others, as under the Company Law, one family can form as many companies as it likes and every such Company is a separate person. The future of India''s landed class has, therefore, been barred and confined for all times to come. This is violation of basic intention of our Constitution as.vested in the preamble to provide "Equality of status and opportunity." There is no limit on the size of any business, shop, industry, income; so there can be no limit on the size of a landholding. An artificial limit cannot be put on landbased society when the same has not been put on other sections of society.

What does the Constitution say on the entire matter ? First of all the Preamble has to be seen which is reproduced below and I have underlined the portions which have been violated in the case of those living on land

We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens :

JUSTICE, Social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and opportunity: and to promote among them all;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation,

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twentysixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

The Preamble which Independent India gave to its Constitution foresaw India as a ''Sovereign Democratic Republic'' but this has been amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, to make India "Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic." The Emergency related amendment has charted a course away from intellectual honesty. It is only the farmer''s land which has been sought to be confiscated in the name of socialism and given away to private individuals. The word ''secular'' has been introduced into the Preamble and since then the most nationalist way of address i.e. Jai Hind has been abolished from all the Government media. Instead our political parties have included construction of temples in their political manifestormaking mockery of the concept of secularism. The importance that was not on Fundamental Rights by our Constitution and the Constitutionmakers has been diluted to a great extent and that too only to militate against the right, status and opportunity available to those based on land, against their wives, their women and their minor children. This has not been carried on into the family of the shopkeeper, the industrialist, the businessman, the service people or any other economic classification. Article 13 made the scope of these rights so clear and the intention of the Constitution so amplified that it can bear reproduction here

13(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires ;

(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, byelaw, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;

(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

SubArticle (4) has been added by the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, which equally deserves reproduction here because it declares the extent to which the legislature is prepared to go :

"Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368. "

A corresponding provision has been made in Article 368 which is also reproduced :

Article 368(3) "Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article."

As if this were not enough, the extreme concentration of authority has been further supported by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, an Emergency time provision which is also reproduced below:

SubArticle (4) of Article 368.

"No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article (whether before or after the commencement of section 55 of Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976) shall be called in question in any court on any ground.

SubArticle (5)

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this article.

Article 15 which has been grossly violated in the clubbing of wife''s independent landholding with the husband''s own unit, denial of a full unit to the daughter qua the son, is also reproduced below :

Article 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, restriction or condition with regard to :

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainments; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

This violation has not taken place in the case of shopkeeper, industrialist, the businessman, the service class or any other classification in country. All these Acts later on, have been given the protection of Article 31B which is also an interpolation and was not part of the original Constitution. Schedule 9 under Article 31B which is also an interpolation and was not part of the original Constitution. Schedule IX created under Article 31B needs going into. It is huge list of land related legislations and debars their challenge in our courts. There are hardly a few other Acts enumerated therein but those Acts do not include the invidious distinctions which the Punjab Land Reforms Act does and which have been explained in the discussion above. Out of a list of 202 Acts enumerated only 26 are others whereas 176 are land related. Even protection of 2nd proviso to sub article (1) of Article 31A has been finished under protection given by Article 31B. Late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri had the most heightened sense of intellectual integrity and honesty. He had given a slogan to the Nation when we were experiencing an external threat "Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan." the background of both is the same or similar. And what have we done to their status in equality of opportunity or the status of their women and minor male issues is a sad commentary. These amendments specially those of the sad seventies need a fresh look so that Constitution of India can be seen to be equitable to all and not prejudicial to those connected with land or related to landowners only. I, therefore, feel that Punjab Land Reforms Act is an unconstitutional Act. Article 31B and Schedule IX have been used wrongly to violate the fundamental rights of a particular category of Indian citizens. Equality of opportunity provided to a citizen to take his profession/business to any limit has been confined in case of the landowner who may not hold beyond a very petty limit. Agriculture is in your blood or it is not. An agriculturist cannot be a businessman, generally speaking. To say that he can own upto 7 Hectares of first quality land then take up any other profession, if he wants to do better would be a twist to the concept of equality of opportunity. Every Indian is free to develop in his own genius. The farmer, the son of the farmer, and the women of the farmer, therefore must have the same rights as any body else in this country.

I have gone through 1974PLJ168, 1977PLJ139 and 1980PU470 which is a pronouncement on Haryana Act. Those rulings either do not answer most of the points raised here or they stop from going into the matter because of constitutional provisions as discussed above. In other words goddess of justice has kept her blindfold on whereas she should have wielded the sword. Achievement of the constitutional amendments of the seventies quoted above has been to provide protection to the legislature and legislations passed by it. This is reversal of modern democratic principles. It is the individual and the people who have to be given protection from the acts of legislatures and the executive. It is they. who were regarded worthy of fundamental rights. These amendments have transferred these rights in effect to legislatures. This surely is wrong. I would do well to remind the legislature, executive and even the judiciary of what is expected of us all if surh situations. How can anybody describe it better than in the words of the father of our Nation Mahatma Gandhi ? There is great wisdom the light in those words and at the same time they are pRegulation nt of the great burden which judiciary must bear and not abdicate its responsibility, Gandhi said:

"When a government is satanic, sedition is my religion."

We would therefore do well to set things right short of pushing people to the extreme.

Not all these pleas had been taken by the learned counsels. This court has exercised its inherent power to pick in the Act what is against social justice and to hold it up against proper light. Those provisions of the Constitution which impinged on our social structure and barred equality of opportunity have been examined and shown for what they are a travesty of uniformity of law and equal protection to all.

From my discussion against para 5 ante, the present revision petition is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur for redetermination of surplus area in the light of this judgment. The petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before him on 9th November, 1992.

Announced.