LexAJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F G H ,\JIT SINGH v. STA'.f.E OF PUNJAB & ANR. December 2, 1966 [K. SUBBA RAO, C.J. M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M, S!KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.j Retrospeclivity-Public Officer-Retrospective appointment by l'/01i/i· cation-Acts dpne before date of Notification, if valid. Constitution of India, 1950, Arr. 3 lA ( 1), Second proviso-"Acquisi- tiOn .by Statti', meaning of. E:P.st Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmenta- tion) Act (SO of 1948)--Scheme under-Small portion of land taken from proprietor holding land within ceiling limit-Pr }rietor, if entitled 10 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 llolding land within the ceiling liiµit. The scheme for Cl>n· solidation provided for taking of a fraotion 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 pro- prietors, 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, Che proprietor J and non-proprietors would share in the benefits. The appellan: filed a writ petition in 1965, contending that: (I) The ConsoLdation Officer was not appointed till after the repartition was CtJn- cluded, that. he eould 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(J) of the Constitution, with the result· that compensation to the proprietor at the market rate was payable. The High Court di.,missed the petition. On appeal, HELD: (Per SubiJa Rao. C. J., Sik1i and Bachawat JJ.) (1) The Consolidation Officer haU no authority to act as such before he was ap- poin:ed and what he did, ·purporting to act as such officer, had no bind- ing effect on the ownecs. Further, the State Government could not appoint him and clothe him with authority re:rospectively. But, as the appellant was guilty of Jaches and no manifest injustice was done to him~ the High Court was right in rejec·ing the contention. [147 B-D] (Per Hidayatullah and Shela!, JJ.) : A> the petition w.- filed more lhan three years after the compJet:on of the repartition of holding5. the. contention should not be entertained in the face of the presUmption urder s. 114. Indian Evidence Act, nan1ely. that the Officer must have been appointed to act as such, as without such appointment he would not have acted. [154 BJ 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 2 S.C.R. (2) (Per Subba Rao, C. J. S1kri and llachawat, JJ.). The word' "acquisition hy the State" in the second proviso to Art. 3 IA(I) do not have any technical meaning. In the cont-.t of Art. 31A the e•pression must have the same meaning as it bas in Art. 3 IA( I )(a). The essential difference between "acquisition by the State" on the one band and "modifi- cation or extinguishment of ri$hts" on the other, is that in the first case the beneficiary is the State wbde in the second the beneficiary is not the State. Therefore, if the State has in substance acquired all the rights in the land tor its own pu'l"'ses, even if the title remains with the owner, it canno1 be said that it 1s not acquisilion within !he proviso. [149 B-D; 150 G] Start of Wtst Btngal v. Subodh Gopal Bose [1954] S.C.R. 581, Dwarkadas Shriniwas v. TM Sho/apur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., (1954] S.C.R. 674, Sagh/r Ahmad v. State of U.P. [1955] I S.C.R. 707 and Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Statt of Bombay, [1958] S.C.R. 1122, followed. But on the facts of this case, the beneficiary of the modification ol rights was neither the State nor the Panchayat; and therefore, there was no acquisition by the State within the second proviso. As a result of the scbe11Je the tille to the small fraction of land wLich was taken away for forming lhe common pool re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.