Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
ARJAN SINGH AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/10/1968
BENCH:
HEGDE, K.S.
BENCH:
HEGDE, K.S.
SHAH, J.C.
MITTER, G.K.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1970 AIR 703 1969 SCR (2) 347
ACT:
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and
Validation) Act XVI of 1962 ss. 1(2) and 7--Expression
"this Act" in s. 7--if referred to principal Act or
Amendment Act--Whether s. 32-KK introduced into the
principal Act came into force on 30th October 1956 in view
of provisions of s. 1(2) or from commencement of principal
Act.
HEADNOTE:
The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act XIII of
1955 came into force on March 6, 1955, whereby it was
provided that every land owner would be entitled to select
any parcel or parcels of land not exceeding the permissible
limit, which was fixed at 30 standard acres. The principal
Act was amended in 1956 by the inclusion of Chapter 4A which
provided for the Government taking over the surplus lands in
the hands of a land owner. Another Amendment Act III of
1959 which was made operative from January 19, 1959
incorporated into the principal Act s. 32(FF) which
provided that except in certain specified cases no transfer
or other disposition of land effected after 21st .August
1956 could affect the rights of the State Government under
the Act. In 1962 the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment and Validation) Act XVI of 1962 was passed.
Section 7 of this Act introduced a new s. 32KK into the
principal Act whereby it was provided that land owned by a
Hindu undivided family would be deemed to be land of one
land owner and, a partition of land owned by such a family
shall be deemed to. be a disposition of land for the
purposes of s. 32-FF. Section 1(2) of ’the Amendment Act
provided that Sections 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 "shall be deemed
to. have come into force on the 30th day of October, 1956
and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into
force at once,".
The first Appellant together with his son the second
Appellant and two other sons were members of a joint Hindu
family which owned agricultural lands in Punjab. The
Appellant’s family divided their family property by a
Registered Partition Deed on September 6, 1956 and necessary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
changes were thereafter made in the mutation register.
After Act III of 1959’ came into force, the Collector of
Sangrur started proceedings under Chapter 4A of the Act for
determining the surplus lands in the hands of the appellant.
Despite the representations of the Appellants, the Collector
ignored the partition effected in the family ’and held that
about 18 standard acres were surplus in their hands.
Appeals filed by the Appellants before the Commissioner,
Patiala Division and the State Government were rejected.
The Appellants then challenged the orders of these
authorities by a writ petition under Art. 226 of the
Constitution, but this was dismissed’ by a Single Judge of
the High Court who took the view that as s. 32-KK had become
a part of the principal Act, the words "this Act" in that
section must refer to the principal Act and not to Section
7 of the Amendment Act. A Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed an appeal following an earlier decision of the
Court in Bir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors.
(1963) P.L.R. 961. In the appeal to this Court there was no
dispute that if the partition entered into in the family
was. taken into consideration, the lands held by the
different sharers would’ be within the permissible limits.
348
HELD: The orders impugned in the writ petition must be
quashed.
A reading of the various provisions of the 1962 Act show
that the legislature intended that s. 7 of that Act which
introduced s. 32-KK into the principal Act should be deemed
to have come into force on the 30th October 1956. The words
"this Act" in s. 7 of the Amendment Act (s. 32-KK of the
principal Act) were intended to refer to the Amendment Act
’and not to the principal Act. It is true that ordinarily
when a section is incorporated into the principal Act by
’means of an amendment, reference in that section to "this
Act" means the principal Act. But in view of sub-s. (2)
of s. 1 of the Amendment Act of 1962 that construction had
become impermissible. Every statute has to be construed as
a whole and the construction given should be ’a harmonious
one. It was not permissible for the Court to. proceed on
the basis that the legislature had enacted sub-s. (2) of s.
1 of the Amendment Act 1962, by oversight. If any mistake
had crept into that section it was for the legislature
to correct the same. [352 C--F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 463 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order,
dated March 30, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Letters
Patent. Appeal No. 24 of 1963.
E. C. Agrawala and Champat Rai, for the appellant.
Harbans Singh and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. Though several questions of law were raised
in this appeal by special leave, after hearing the Counsel
for the parties on one of those questions, namely on what
date s. 32 (KK) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act 1955 (Act No. XIII of 1955) (to be hereinafter referred
to as the Principal Act) should be deemed to have come into
force, we did not think it necessary to hear the.Counsel
for the parties on the other questions raised in the appeal.
Before examining the question of law referred to
hereinbefore it is necessary to set out the material facts.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
The second appellant is the son of the first appellant.
The appellants alongwith Charanjit Singh and Darshan, the
two other sons of the first appellant were members of a
joint Hindu family. That family owned agricultural lands in
the village Hathoa, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
The principal Act came into force on March 6, 1955. The
preamble to that Act says that it is an Act to amend and
consolidate the law relating to tenancies of agricultural
lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms.
That Act provided that:
"subject to the provisions of s. 5 every
land .owner owing land exceeding thirty
standard acres shall be en-
349
titled to select for personal cultivation from the land
held by him in.the State as a land owner any parcel or
parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate area the
permissible limit and reserve such land for personal
cultivation by intimating his selection in the prescribed
form and manner to the Collector."
The permissible limit is thirty standard acres. Under that
Act, there was no provision for Government taking over the
lands that were in excess of the permissible limits. The
appellants’ family divided their family properties as per a
registered partition deed on September 6, 1956. Thereafter
necessary changes in the mutation register were made. The
principal Act was amended in 1956 as per Amendment Act 15
of 1956 which came into force, it appears several
alienations were effected by to the principal Act Chapter 4A
which provides for Government ’taking over the surplus lands
in the hands of a land owner i.e. the lands in excess of the
permissible limit. After that amendment came into force, it
appeals several alienations were effected by the land owners
to get out of the reach of the law. Neither the principal
Act nor the Amendment effected in 1956 prohibited any
alienation. Then came the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands (Amendment) Act, No. HI of 1959 which was made
operative from January 19, 1959. Among other provisions
that Amendment Act incorporated into the Act s. 32(FF)
which says:
"Save in the case of land acquired by
the State Government under any law for the
time being in force or by an heir by
inheritance or up to 30th July 1958 by a
landless person or a small landowner not
being a relation as prescribed of the person
making the transfer or disposition of land,
for consideration up to an area which with or
without the area owned or held by him does not
in the aggregate exceed the permissible limit,
no transfer or other disposition of land
effected after 21st August, 1956, shall
affect the right of the State Government
under this Act to the surplus area to which it
would be entitled but for such transfer or
disposition :"
This Section has a proviso which reads:
"Provided that any person who has
received any advantage under such transfer or
disposition of land shall be bound to restore
it, or to make compensation for it, to the
person from whom he received it."
In 1962 the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment
and Validation) Act, No. XVI of 1962 was passed. It
350
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
crone into force on July 20, 1962. two sections in that Act
which are relevant for our present purpose are ss. 7 and 1
Section 7 reads:
"Insertion of new section 32-KK in Pepsu
Act 13 of 1955.--After section 32-KK of the
principal Act,the following section shall be
inserted, namely :--
"32-KK. Land owned by Hindu undivided
family. to be deemed land of one
landowner.---Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or in any other law for
the time being in force,--
(a) where, immediately before the
commencement this Act, a landowner and his
descendants constitute a Hindu undivided
family, the landowned by such family shall,
for the purposes. of this Act, be deemed to.
be the land of that landowner and no
descendant shall, ’as. member of such family,
be entitled to claim that in respect of his
share of such land he is a landowner in his
own right; and
(b) a partition of land owned by a
Hindu undivided family referred to in clause
(a) shall be deemed to be a disposition of
land for the purposes of section 32-FF."
Explanation :--In this section, the
expression "descendant" includes an adopted
son."
Section 1 sets out the short title and commencement of that
Act. That Section reads:
"This Act may be called the Pepsu Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 1962.
(2) Section 2, section 4, section 5,
section 7 and section 10 shall be deemed to
have come into force on the 30th day of
October 1956 and the remaining provisions of
this Act shall come into force at once."
After the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment)
Act No. III of 1959 came into force, the Collector of
Sangrur started proceedings under Chapter 4A of the Act for
determining the surplus lands in the hands of the
appellants. In those proceedings despite the
representations of the appellants, the Collector ignored the
partition effected in the family of the appellants in
determining the surplus lands in the hands of the members of
the family. He considered them as one unit and on that
basis held that eighteen standard acres and 51/2 units of
lands are surplus in their hands. There is no dispute that
if the partition entered into in the family had been taken
into consideration, the lands
351
held by the different sharers are within permissible limit.
The appellants unsuccessfully went up in appeal against that
order to the Commissioner, Patiala Division. Against the
order of the Commissioner, the appellants appealed to the
State Government but that appeal was rejected on September
1, 1961. Thereafter the appellants filed Civil Writ No.
1418 of 1961 in the High Court of PUnjab at Chandigarh under
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the decisions of
respondents 1 to 3. The learned Single Judge who heard
that petition dismissed the same on November 27, 1962. He
held that as s. 32(KK) had become a part of the principal
Act the words "this Act" in that section must refer to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
principal Act. and not to s. 7 of the Amendment Act. The
decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a
Division Bench of that Court. That bench followed an
earlier decision of that Court in Bit Singh and Ors. v. The
State of Punjab and Ors.(1). At this stage we may mention
that in the Punjab High Court at one stage there were
conflicting decisions on the question of law under
consideration. It is not necessary to refer to those
decisions as grounds on which they differed are referred to
in Bit Singh’s case(1). The decisions which have taken
the same view as taken by the High Court in this case have
ignored the significance of s. 1 (2) of the 1962 Amendment
Act. They have exclusively focussed their attention on s.
32(KK) and the supposed reasons for its enactment.
It is, a well settled rule of construction that no.
provision in a statute should be given retrospective effect
unless the legislature by express terms or by necessary
implication has made it retrospective and that where a
provision is made retrospective, care should be taken not
to extend its retrospective effect beyond what was intended.
To accept the line o.f reasoning adopted by the learned
Judges of the High Court who decided this case is to
completely ignore sub-s. (2) of s. 1 of the 1962 Amendment
Act. That Section in specific terms says that s. 32(KK) (s.
7 of the Amendment Act) shall be deemed to have come into
force on the 30th day of October 1956. We fail to see
how we can ignore this mandate of the legislature. That
provision clearly brings out the intention of the
legislature. There is no ambiguity in it. It is not
possible to adopt any rule of construction which would
necessitate the Court to ignore that provision. It is not
possible to accept the conclusion of the High Court that s.
32(KK) must be deemed to have come into force on the date
the principal Act came into force namely on March 6,
1955. That is not even the case of the respondents. Clause
(b) of s. 32(KK) which is the clause relevant for our
present purpose would be a meaningless provision unless the
same is read along with s. 32(FF) which was for
(1) [1963] P.L.R. 961.
352
the. first time incorporated into the principal Act in 1959
though it affects all transfers and other dispositions of
land effected after August 21, 1956. It is not the case of
the respondents that the transfers effected or
the .partitions made before August 21, 1956. ,are within the
mischief of s. 32(FF) or s. 32(FF) read with s. 32(KK).
Therefore there is no basis for saying that s. 32(KK) has
been given retrospective effect as from the date the
principal Act came into force.
On a reading of the various provisions of the Pepsu
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation)
Act, 1962, it appears to us that the legislature intended
that s. 7 of that .Act which introduced into the principal
Act s. 32(KK) should be deemed to. have come into force on
the 30th October 1956. Evidently the draftsman when he
drafted s. 7 of that Act had in his mind the Amendment Act
and not the principal Act. The words "this Act" in s. 7 of
the Amendment Act (s. 32-KK of the principal Act) in our
opinion were intended to refer to the Amendment Act and
not to the principal Act. It is true that ordinarily when a
Section is incorporated into the principal Act by means of
an amendment, reference in that Section to "this Act" means
the principal Act. But in view of sub-s. (2) of s. 1 of the
Amendment Act of 1962 that construction has become
impermissible. Every statute has to be construed as a whole
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
and the construction given should be a harmonious one. It
may be that the legislature intended that s. 32(KK) should
be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of
October 1956, on which day s. 32(FF) became a part of the
principal Act. It is possible that the legislature did. not
intend to give to that Section the same retrospective effect
as it had given to s. 32(FF). It is not permissible for us
to proceed on the basis that the legislature had enacted
subs. (2) of s. 1 of the Amendment Act 1962 by oversight.
If any mistake had crept into that Section it is for the
legislature to correct the same and it is not for this Court
to proceed on the supposition that the same was enacted by
oversight.
For the reasons mentioned above this appeal is allowed
and the orders impugned in the Writ Petition are quashed.
The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellants both
in this Court as well as in the High Court.
R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed.
353