GURDIT SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 10-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

896 
GURDIT SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
April 10, 1974 
(K. K. MATHEW AND A, ALAG!RISWAMI, JJ.] 
PepJu Tenancy and Agricuilural La11ds Act, 19SS-As amended by Act 16 
<>! 1962 introducinl! Sec. 32~DD(b)-Retrospective effect of-Determination of 
sztrplus area-Prei•ious order declaring no surplus land on basis of judgment and 
decree of Civil -court-Whether ca11 be 
reviewed 
Ullder 
Sec. 
32~DD(b}
Natural iusltce . 
. Judgment-Connotation of-Interpretation Qf statutes--Object of provision 
is circumscribed by the language of the section. 
· 
The lands in question were bequeathed to appellants 2 and 3, sons of ·the 
first appellant, by their grandfather. After the death of the testator mutations 
in favour of appellants 2 and 3 were effected in the revenue records in 1939. 
'Ibe first appellant managed to get the mutation of the land in bis name in 1944 
for the reason that he wanted to get licence for a gun. Jn 19SS, when lhe Act 
came into force, the first appelJant was shown to be the owner of the land in the 
revenue records. 
On October 30. 1956 the Act was amended so as to impose 
A 
B 
c 
a ceiling on the holding of land. 
[) 
Appellants 2 and 3 filed a suit in the civil court for a declaration that the Jand 
belonsed to them and that there v."as no transfer of the land to the first appellant. 
'Ibe latter, who was the only defendant, did not contest the suit and it was 
decreed on February 14, 1961. Thereafter, in proceedings under the Act, by 
order dated March 28, 1961 the CoUector declared on the basis of the jadgment 
and decree of the civil court that there was no surplus land in the ownership and 
pOssessiOh of th~ first appellant. 
The Act was amended by Act 16 of 1962 and S. 32-DD was introduced into 
the Act with retrospective effect from October 30, 1956, i.e. the date of the 
earlier arnednment. Section 32-DD ~rOYided inter alia that for the purposes of 
determining the surolu:; area of any penon, any judgrnent, decree or order of n 
Court obtained after the commencement of the amending Act of 1956 and 
having lhe effect of diminishing the area of such person which could have been 
declared as his surpJn, area shall be ignored. 
The Collector, acting purportedly 
und~r Sec. 15 of the Punjab land Revenue Code reviewed bis order dared ~farch 
28, 1961. By order dated May 20, 1963 be refused to give effect to the judg-
ment and decree by ignoring them as enjoined by ~ction 32-DD and included 
the land in the hQ)ding of the first appellant. 
The appellnnts · fited a writ petition -in the lligh Court to quash this \'.>rder. 
Tiie Hilb Court overruled the contentions of the appellants und di,missed 
iln: 
writ petition. 
Before this Court. the appellants raised the same 
contentions. 
namely : (i) that the. Co1lector had no jurisdiction to review his order dated 
~farch 28. 1961; Oil that lhe order in review-was passed without notice lo the 
appellants; and (iii) lhat. in any event. the iudgn1ent of the civil court was not 
of the nature.contemplated by section 32-DD. 
Allowing th~ appeal, 
flELD: (1) The order of the Collector dated March 28, 1961, was in perfectly 
E 
F 
G 
valid 1>ne wh'n h \\"as pas-red. 
No one challeng!d that order and it became final 
for alt p;irposes. Th: Collector cou1d not have anticipated th~ enactm~nt of thp 
sectioa with rtff'Mpecth·e effect and passed the order conformtn& to its provi-
sions. we· cannot subscrib.! to the view that the order of th~ Col!cctor passed 
H 
bn MarCh 28, 1961, became null and void merely h~cauie he failed to take- int<' 
account the provision~ of Sec. 32-DD even if bv virtue of the fiction it is to be 
assumed that the section was on the statute book when he passed it. Vle do not 
' 
.-
; 
GURDIT SINGH v. PUNJAB (Mathew, /.) 
897 
A 
think that we can extend the ratio of the·decision in the Anisminic case (infra) 
to a case where the provision overlooked during the course of the enquiry \vas 
not on the statute book but was beaotten and brought into being sub&equently, 
though with retrospective vitality. The order of the Collector dated March 28, 
1961 cannot, therefore, be regarded as null a_nd void. There was no proviM.on 
in the amending A~t wPich enabled the_ Collector to review it, 
We cannot stretch 
the fiction of retrospectivity so far as to make the order nuU and void witbOut 
further ado. [899 D-900 B] 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
An~mini1: Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commissio11, [1967] 3 W.L.R. 382, 
distingQished. 
•
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.