Retrospectivity-Public Officer-Retrospective appointment by Notification-Acts done before date of Notification, if valid.

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 31A(1), Second proviso "Acquisition by State", meaning of.

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (50 of 1948) Scheme under-Small portion of land taken from proprietor holding land within ceiling limit-Proprietor, if entitled t0 compensation.

Between May 1961, and May 1962, consolidation proceedings were taken under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in an estate in which the appellant was a small proprietor holding land within the ceiling limit. The scheme for consolidation provided for taking of a fraction of each proprietor's land and throwing into a common pool which was added to the land already in the possession of the Gram Panchayat. But no portion of the common pool apart from what was already owned by the Panchayat, was reserved for providing income to the Panchayat. The ownership of the common pool was to vest in the proprietary body consisting of the several proprietors, and the Gram Panchayat was to manage and use it for the common needs and benefits of the estate, under r. 16(ii) of the Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, so that, the proprietors and non-proprietors would share in the benefits. The appellant filed a writ petition in 1965, contending that (1) The Consolidation Officer was not appointed till after the re partition was concluded, that he could not be appointed retrospectively, that he had no legal authority when he commenced the proceedings, and therefore, the scheme was invalid; and (2) the scheme amounted to "acquisition by the State" within the meaning of the second proviso to Art. 31A(1) of the Constitution, with the result that compensation to the proprietor at the market rate was payable. The High Court dismissed the petition.