ATMA RAM versus THE STATE OP PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 748 · Decided: 08-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

December 8. 
748 
SUPREME COURT REIOR'IS ll9fi9] Eupp. 
ATMA RAM 
v. 
THE STATE OP PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
(and connected petition) 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, 
K. SuBBA RAo and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Land Tenure-Modification of landlord's rights in land-Enact-
ment-Con1pctc11cc of State Legislature-Constitutional validity-
Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (Punj. X of I95J), as amend-
ed by Act XI of I955. s. I8-Co11stit11tion of India, Arts. I4, I9, 
JI, JIA, 246(3), Entry IS, List II, Seventh Sched11le-P11njab Land 
Revcn11e Act (P1tnj. XV II of I887), ss. J(I), J(J). 
The point in controversy in these petitions was the con-
stitutional validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act 
(Punj. X of 1953). as amended by Act XI of 1955. which sought 
to "provide for the security of land-tenure and other incidental 
matters". The impugned Act which admittedly dealt with 
holdings as defined by the Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 1887, 
limited the area which might be held by a land-owner for the 
purpose of self-cultivation and thereby released surplus area to 
be utilised for resettling ejected tenants; and by s. 18 conferred 
upon the tenants the right to purchase from the land-owners the 
lands held by them and thus themselves to become the land-
owners on prices which would be below the market value. It 
was contended on behalf of the petitioners, who were land-
owners ,affected by the impugned Act, that under Entry 18 in 
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State 
Legislature was incompetent to enact a law limiting the extent 
of the land to be held by a land-owner and that the provisions 
of the impugned Act contravened the petitioners' fundamental 
rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. 
Held, that the contentions must fail. 
The words "rights in or over land" and "land tenures" 
occurring in 'Entry 18 in List II of Seventh Schedule to the Con-
stitution \Vere sufficiently comprehensive to include measures of 
land-tenure reforms, such as the impugned Act, that sought to 
limit the extent of land in cultivating possession of the land-
ov:ner in order to release larger areas of land to be made 
available for cultivation by tenants and that Entry read with 
Art. 246(3) of the Constitution gave the State Legislature 
exclusive po\\·er to enact such measures. 
Such determination of the relation of landlord and tenant 
as was contemplated by s. rS and other provisions of the 
itnpugned 
~\ct, vvhich sought to convert a tenant into a land-
owner, was well within the ambit of Entry 18. 
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORT$ 
749 
The United Provinces v. Mst. Atiqa Begum, [1940) F'.C,.R. IIO 
:1958 
and Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhi, (1946) L.R. 74 I.A. 12, refetred to. 
It was beyond doubt that the impugned Act subst<i.ntially 
Alma Ram 
modified the land-owner's rights to hold and dispose 
1 of his 
v. 
property in any estate or portion thereof and thus fell within 
Thi S1a11 of 
the purview of Art. 31A{1){a) of the Constitution and was Punjab and Others 
immune from any attack on the ground that it contraveMd Arts. 
14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. 
The observations made by this Court in Thakur Rpighubir 
Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer, [1953] S.C.R. 1049, in conhection 
with another Act, with absolutely different provisions, must be 
limited to the facts of that case and were wholly inappliQable. 
Thakur Raghubir Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer, [1953] 
S.C.\R. 1049, distinguished and held inapplicable. 
The words "any estate or of any rights therein" octurring-
in Art. 3rA(1)(a) read in the light of Art. 3rA(2) included any 
kinds of rights either quantitative or qualitative in the area 
encompassed by an estate or any portion of it and thus included 
holdings as defined by the Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 18~7, and 
any shares or portions thereof. 
Regard being had to the legal maxim that the greater must 
include the less, it was inappropriate to suggest that the Consti-
tution should have specifically mentioned "portion of an estate" 
ii: Art. 31A if .it intended to give that Article such a com~rehen
s1ve construction. 
Bhagirath Ram Chand v. State of Punjab, A.LR. 1954 Pun. 
167, approved. 
State of Punjab v. S. Kehar Singh, (1958) 60 P.L.R. 461, dis-
approved. 
Ram Narain M~dhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959] Stjr.pp. (1) 
S.C.R. 489, applied. 
Hukam Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1955) 57 P.L.R. 359, 
refe~d~ 
· 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 176, 177 
and 253 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.