Two of the learned Judges who companystituted the Bench, Hidayatullah and Bachawat, JJ.
In that case the validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1959 was under companysideration.
The challenge to the companystitutional validity of the Act is based solely on the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers v. Punjab 1967 3 SCR 399 .
14 by providing two alternative remedies to the Government and in leaving it to the unguided discretion of the Collector to resort to one or the other and to pick and choose some of those in occupation of public properties and premises for the application of the more drastic procedure under s. 5.
The State had leased its premises to the appellant therein for running a hotel and when the lease expired called upon him to hand over vacant possession of the premises.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
Notices have been issued to the petitioners under section 6 of that Act in order to evict them from a certain piece of land claimed to be Government land.
243 to 246 of 1970.
Petition under Art.
32 of the Constitution.
Jayaram and R. Chandrasekhar, for the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is impugned in these petitions as unconstitutional and void.
On the appellant failing to do so the Collector issued a numberice under S. 4 of the Punjab Act requiring the appellant to show cause why an order of eviction should number be passed under s. 5.
