the petitioners are carrying on farming on the basis of scientific cultivation practices sowing practices and manure practices and because of the use of modern technique the overall yield per acre is very high keeping in view the fertility and nature of the soil.
it was amended on october 30 1956 and chaps.
the petitioners in petition number 261 are landowners in village dhamo majra district patiala in the state of punjab.
iv a and iv b were introduced therein.
number 365 of 61 .
the scheme of chap.
the petitioners have number challenged the constitutionality of these two chapters and their attack is only on r. 31 framed under the powers companyferred on the state government under these chapters.
on march 4 1952 the act was enacted.
they are running an agricultural farm on a mechanised scale and the area of the farm measures 421 acres.
261 and 365 of 1961.
two wells were constructed for providing irrigational facilities and the petitioners have their own electric substation for the purpose.
they spent a large amount far terracing and leveling the land constructing bundhs water channels approach roads and in standardising the area of the fields.
the attack on the rule is practically similar in the two petitions and therefore we shall only give the facts in petition number 261 to understand the nature of the attack.
original jurisdiction petitions number.
they have also companystructed manure pits and have made permanent structural improvements in the shape of construction of roads servant quarters tractor sheds cattle sheds and stores and have in all incurred expenses over rupees three lacs for all these purposes.
july 27.
the land was originally scrub jungle and was uneven and extensive reclamation was carried on by the petitioners at heavy companyt.
petitions under art.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. these two petitions raise a question as to the validiy and companystitutionality of r. 31 framed under the pepsu tenancy and agricultural lands act act number 13 of 1955 as amended by pepsu act number 15 of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the act and will be dealt with together.
number 261/61 .
l. goshin and k. l. mehta for the petitioners in petn.
this area is a companypact block of land and it is said that some part of the area is potentially of high productivity whereas other area is of inferior quality and less productive capacity by reason of the presence of alkaline patches of soil therein.
m. sikri advocate general for the state of the punjab s. bindra and p. d. menumber for the respondents.
