V.D. Bhargava, J.@mdashThis petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed by Deen Dayal, who is one of the cultivators along with his nephews Brij Behari and Avadh Behari, and his grandfather Ram Prasad and aunt Chirora Wati in villages Uldan and Rajapur. They have three plots in each of the two villages.
2. In 1951 the State Government passed the UP Kans Eradication Act (No. XXII) of 1951 and that Act was enforced in village, Uldan and Rajapur in the year 1953. It was alleged that the Petitioner along with other inhabitants of the village raised objection to the applicability of the Act to those two villages and without any enquiry their objections were rejected. The Kans Eradication operation started in the village including the plots of the Petitioner. Thereafter there was a demand of a sum of Rs. 1024-15-0 from him. After the eradication of the Kans from his plots the Petitioner did not want to pay this amount and has come to this Court.
3. The grounds taken by the Petitioner are that the demand is unconstitutional and ultra vires: that the Act abridges the right of the Petitioner to hold property which is guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and that the powers given u/s s. 3, 4, 6 and 7 are arbitrary and capricious and they vest unlimited power upon the executive.
4. I do not think that this Act in any way abridges the right of the Petitioner to hold property. The Kans Eradication Act has been passed for improvement of the land and for the benefit of the Petitioner as well as the other villagers and it is rather unfortunate that such progressive measure made by the State Government should be treated by the villagers as encroachment on their rights. After the eradication of the Kans from their fields the yield that the Petitioner will get would be far greater and better than what he has been getting so far. It was an improvement which was done to his land and the Act was really for eradication of Kans weeds from the whole of the province slowly, which was doing a great damage to the agricultural produce. Among other directive principles, Article 48 of the Constitution provides:
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern scientific lines....
It will be in accordance with the directive principles of the Constitution that the UP Kans Eradication act has been enacted. Therefore, no objection can be raised to the constitutionality of the Act.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had argued that so far as determination of the costs of the Kans Operation is concerned, it has been left entirely to the sweet will and arbitrary discretion of the Kans Officer. I am unable to agree with the contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The power which has been given to the Kans Officer is only to equitably apportion the total cost incurred by the State Government on the Kans Operation in proportion to the area of the land from which kans has been eradicated. Neither the cost of eradication nor the varying of the proportion is at the discretion of the Kans Officer and therefore, there are already limitations fixed in accordance with which the Kans Officer will put the liability on different persons. If the liability has not been put in accordance with those principles, it may have been open to the Petitioner to come to this Court and challenge that they have not been observed. The Petitioner has not raised any ground on that score. Similarly the powers which have been given to the State Government or its delegates to declare an area as one which is affected by Kans can also not be said to be arbitrary.
6. It was always open to the Petitioner to object that his village was not affected with Kans and, therefore, this Act did not apply and that that area should not be declared as Kans affected area. As a matter of fact the Petitioner himself had applied to the Kans Officer to eradicate Kans from one of his plots and he had further said that he was willing to pay the costs. There is no allegation in the affidavit to the effect that his fields did not contain kans and therefore Kans Operations were futile in those plots. He has come to this Court not when this area was declared as a Kans area and when he could have said that there was no Kans in his plot, but he has come when the Kans has been removed from his field and he has already benefitted. this Court cannot give any assistance to a person who after taking the benefit wants to refuse to pay for it.
7. Under the circumstances I do not think that there is any force in this Writ petition it is accordingly dismissed with costs.
