Land ceiling appeal: an owner restored to possession after ousting was declared to hold surplus land beyond the permissible limit under the Pepsu Act. The Supreme Court held the ceiling operates continuously and rejected her orchard exemption claim, dismissing the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
646
A
VIDYA VATI
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
September 26, 1967
(J. C. SHAH, S. M. SllC:RI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J B
The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural. Lands Act 13 of 1955, .,, 3:!-A(l) and 32-K-Whether ban on holding !<ind in excesa of per. missible limits operates only on excess on date of commencement of . Act 15 of 1956 or also in future-Person not in Possession of land on date of commencement unable to give undertaking to plant an orchard within two years-Therefore unable to claim exemption. for 10 acres 0 for an orchard-Whether has a remedy.
The appellant was the owner of 56 standard acres of agricultural land in Punjab from which she was ousted in 1954 by certain persons who had no title to the land and was restored to possession in 1960 after a suit filed by her was decreed in her favour. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955 was brought into force in March, 1955. Under s. 5 of that Act any land· owner owning land ex• ceeding 3'.l standard acres was entitled to select for personal cultiva- D tion a maximum area of land within the permissible limit and to inform the collector of his selection. Since the appellant's land was in the occupation of the trespassers at the time, she did not make any selection under s. 5. The Act was amended with effect from October 30, 1956 by the East Punjab Act 15 of 1956 which introduced Chapter IV-A and the new s. 32-A(l) provided that no person shall be entitled to hold land under his personal cultivation which exceeds in theo 1 aggregate the permissible limit.
The appellant submitted a return In the prescribed form in res_pect of her land and the collector, after considering her objections, declared that she held 21 standard acres in excess of the ceiling prescribed by the Act. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner and a writ petition to quash the order was rejected by the High Court.
l'n appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appel-1 !ant (i) that s. 32-A(l) operates only at the point of time when the Act. comes into force i.e. October 30, 1956; the ceiling could be enforced only if a person owned or held land in excess of the permissible limit on that day or if he acquired or possessed it after the commencement of Act 15 of 1956 by transfer, exchange, inheritance or any of the other ways expressly covered by ss. 32-L and 32-M; and (ii) the appellant should in any event have been permitted to reserve e 10 acres out of her holding under s. 32-K for an orchard.
HELD: Dismissing the appeal.
(i) The ban imposed by section 32-A(!) operates whenever a person is found to own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit. [650G]
Although ss. 3:!-L and 32-M deal expressly With certain classes ot R acquisitions after the date of commencement of the Act ·on that account no restriction can be imposed upon the connotation of the expression "no person. shall be entitled to own or held" occurring In s. 32-A, that it is limited in its operation to the point of commence.. ment of the Act. [64913-D]
647
PUNJAB (S/UJh, J.)
VIDYA VA'fl V
A Such an interpretation is also contrary to the scheme of the Act. Under the scheme of Chapters II, Ill and IV as they originally stood the tenants were given the right to purchase the lands not selected by the landowner for personal cultivation, but the landowner was otherwise subject to no further restrictions; by Ch. IV-A it was intended to place a ceiling upon the owning or holding of land for personal cultivation by a landowner or a tenant in excess of the penniS-1 sible limit and to provide that the excess land be appropriated to the B State. [650B, C]
(ii) In order to qualify for the exemption for land up to 10 acres under s. 32-K for planting an orchard, the landowner has to give an undertaking that he will bring the land within two years from the commencement of the Amending Act under an orchard•, has to plant the orchard within that period, and to maintain it as such till the d'ate of the grant of exemption. A person like the appellant who i~ O not in possession of the land at the date when the Amending Act ill brought into force may not be in a position to give and fulfill the; undertaking. The legislature has not made any provision for extending the time in respect of special cases like the present or for extending the time for planting an orchard; it is for the legislature to 'rectify this lacuna and not for the Court to give a strained meaning to the words used by the legislature which they do not bear. [651C-F] '() CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated January 14, 1964 of. the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent No. 11 of 1964.
S. V Gupte, Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
.Ill Hardev Singh, S. P. Nayar for R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. The appellant Vidya Vati who is the owner of r 56.101 standard acres of agricultural land in the village BishanpUra, tahsil Jind, District Sangrur, in the State of Punjab, was ousted from the land sometime in 1954 by certain persons wl).o had no title to the land. A civil suit filed by her for a declaration of title and ·for possession of the land from the trespassers was decreed and she was restored to possession of the land on 0October15,1960.
0
The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955 was brought into force during the pendency of the civil suit with effect from March 4, 1955. Under s. 5 of the Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 every landowner owning land exceeding thirty standard a~eii was entitled to select for personal cultivation from the land B held by hiip in the State as a landowner any parcel or parcels of land nl)t 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. Since the land was in the occupation of ·the trespassers, the appellant
648
{1968] l s.o.n.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
did not make any selection of land for personal cultivation. The A Act was amended with effect from October 30, 1956 by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act 15 of 1956 and thereby, amongst other provisions, Ch. IV-A was added. The provisions contained in that Chapter were designed to impose a ceiling on the holding of owners and tenants of agricultural land held for personal cultivation within the State and for impos- B ing restrictions on acquisition of land and disposal of surplus area. In respect 0£ the land owned by her the appellant submitted a return in Form VII-A prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act. The Collector of the District after considering the objections of the appellant, declared that she held 21.l"i standard acres in excess of the ceiling prescribed by the Act. The order of the Collector was confirmed in appeal to the CommiS.. C sioner, Patiala Division. A petition moved by the appellant under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ quashing that order was rejected by Gurdev Singh, J., and an appeal against the order was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The appellant appeals to this Court with special leave. D
Counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of Ch. IV-A have no applica~ion to the case of the appellant, since she was not in "cultivatory possession" of the land on the appointed date i.e. October 30, 1956; that the appellant has not acquired the land by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement, or by inheritance, beque;t or gift from a person to whom she is an heir, E and on that account ss. 32-L & 32-M of the Act have no application to her case; and· that in any event the appellant should have been permitted to reserve out of her holding ten acres of land for an orchard under s. 32-K of the Act.
Before considering the merit of these contentions it is neces- F sary to notice the relevant provisions in Ch. IV-A of the Act which imposed a ceiling on holding of agricultural land under personal cultivation. Section 32-A(I) of the Act provides:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law custom, usage or agreement, no person shall be entitled to own or hold as landowner or tenant land under his preG sonal cultivation within the Stale which exceeds in the aggregate the permissible limit."
Counsel for the appellant contends that s. 32-A([) operates only. al the point of time when the Act comes into force i.e. Octoher 30, 1956, and not thereafter. If on that date, says coun· sel, a person owns or holds within the State land under his personal B cultivation as landowner or tenant in excess of' the permissible limit. the State is entitled to take away the surplus land, and that if the holder or tenant after the commencement of Act 15 of 1956 acquires or possesses lanJ by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement
VIl>YA VAT! V PUNJAB (8/iah, J.)
650
[1968) 1 s.o.a.
SUPREME COURT llEPOR1'8
selected was in the possession of a tenant he could, subject to the A restrictions contained in s. 7-A, evict the tenant. The .lands which were not selected for personal cultivation by the landowner could be purchased by the tenant in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in s. 22. The Legislature thereafter modified the scheme of the Act and incorporated Ch. IV-A under which no person could own or hold land either as landowner or B as tenant in excess of the permissible limit. The excess was to be treated as surplus land and appropriated to the State. Whereas under the scheme of Chapters II, III and IV as they originally stood the tenants were ~iven the right to purchase the lands not selected by the landowner for personal cultivation, but the landowner was otherwise subject to no further restrictions; by Ch. IV-A it was intended to place a ceiling upon tha owning or hold' C ing of land for personal cultivation by a landowner or a tenant in excess of the permissible limit.
Viewed in the light of that scheme, also, it is impossible to construe s. 32-A as being operative only at the point of time at which the Amending Act incorporating Ch. IV-A was brought D into force, for the words of the section contain no limitation, and the scheme of the Act indicates no such implication. It is true that under s. 32-B every person who owns or holds as landowner or tenant land under his personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit at the commencement of the Acf is required to make a return in respect of his holding. But that is enacted with a view to provide machinery for effectuating the provisions E imposing the ceiling on land held at the date of commencement: it does not even indirectly suggest that s. 32-A is limited in its operation to the point of time at which the Act is brought into force and is spent thereafter. Failure on the part of the Legislature to deal with cases in which at the date on which the Act was brought into force, the owner or holder of land was not F cultivating the land because he was not in cultivatory possession thereof but was restored to his possession during the subsistence of the Act. cannot also be used to limit the operation of s. 32-A(l) only to the point of time at which the Act was brought into force. In our judgment the ban imposed by s. 32-A operates whenever he is found to own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding G the permissible limit.
Section 32-K provides for exemption of lands used or intended to be used for certain specified purposes to the extent indicated from the ceiling impbscd by s. 32-A(l). By cl. (vi) of s. 32-K(l) it is provided that the provisions of s. 32-A shall not apply where a landowner gives an undertaking in 'writing to the B Collector that he shall, within a period of two years from the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act. 1956. plant an orchard in any area of his land not exceeding ten- standard acres, such ·irea of land.
VIDYA VAT! ~. PUNJAB (Shali, J.)
61il
The appeal therefore fails. There will be no order as to costs.
R.K.P.S.
\
Appeal dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Does the ceiling under s. 32-A(1) operate only at commencement or whenever a person holds excess land in personal cultivation?
Could an owner not in possession on the appointed date claim the s. 32-K orchard exemption of ten acres?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Vidya Vati
The State of Punjab
J. C. Shah
S. M. Sikri
J. M. Shelat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
