Article 14 challenge to public land eviction law succeeded because the scheme was discretionary, final, and more onerous than ordinary remedies.

The U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 was examined for Article 14 compliance on the ground that it enabled selective use against some unauthorized occupants while ordinary civil or revenue remedies remained available against others. The Court treated the Act as a special and additional enforcement mechanism, not a complete substitute for ordinary remedies, and noted that the Public Authority's threshold opinion under Section 3 was discretionary and not open to challenge under the Act. It further found the procedure more onerous because it imposed no limitation period, gave finality to orders and opinions, and allowed objections on title to be treated as frivolous. The Act was declared ultra vires Article 14 and proceedings under it were invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether Sections 3, 4(1), 5 and 7 of the U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because they permit selective action against some unauthorized occupants of Government land while leaving ordinary civil or revenue remedies available against others, and because the statutory procedure is discriminatory and more onerous than the ordinary law.

Analysis: The Act was held to provide only a special and additional machinery for the enforcement of the State's existing right to recover possession of public land, not a self-contained code excluding ordinary remedies. The power to initiate proceedings under Section 3 depended on the Public Authority's subjective opinion that the land was required for a public purpose, and that opinion was not open to challenge under the Act. The remedy was therefore discretionary at the threshold and did not operate as an exclusive statutory substitute for a suit in civil or revenue court. The Court further held that the Act did not expressly or by necessary implication repeal or bar the ordinary remedies available under other laws. At the same time, the Act was found to be more onerous because it contained no period of limitation, attached finality to orders and opinions of the Public Authority, and allowed the Public Authority to decide whether objections as to title were frivolous, thereby enabling differential treatment of persons similarly situated.

Conclusion: The Act was declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and the proceedings and orders taken under it were held invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory eviction scheme that leaves the ordinary remedy intact for some similarly situated persons but confers an unguided discretion to invoke a more drastic, final and limitation-free procedure against others offends Article 14.

---