INDER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 10-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
603. 
INDER SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
April, 10, 1967 
[K. SUBBA R.Ao, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
R. 
S. 
BACHAWAT, 
J.M. SHELAT 
AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu 13 lff 1955) 
s. 32-FF-Limit of holding by Hindu undivided family, if defeats right 
of its member-If infringes Art. 19 and protected by Art. 31-A. 
Constitution of India, Arts. 19 and 
31-A-Validity of s. 32-FF of 
Pepsu Tenancy and ARricultura/ Lands Act 
While ascertaining the surplus land under the Pepsu Tenancy 
and 
Agricultural Lands Act, the excess over 30 acres owned by the appellants, 
a Hindu 11Ddivided family was declared surplus. In ascertaining the 
surplus, the authorities ignored the transfer of land by the Karla of the 
family to "1ll oulllider by a registered deed. The appellants unsuccess-
fuily filed writ petition. In appeal to this Court, the appellants con-
tended that s. 32-KK deprives a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family 
of his rights of property in that it takes away the rights of the descendants 
of the land-owner to claim 
for themselves the 
permissible area and 
vest them in the head of the family alone so that there is not only an 
infrinAOment of the right to hold property under Art. 
19(1) 
(f) but 
also discrimination in favour of the head of the family infringing thereby 
Art. 14 and that the section cannot be said to be legislation whose object 
is agrarian refonn and, therefore, is not protected by Art. 31-A. 
IjELD : The appeal must fail. 
In Priram Singh v. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 S.C.R. 536] this Court 
upheld the validity of s. 32-FF and held that that section was prptected 
by Art. 31-A against any challenge under Art. 19. If a transfer or a 
disposition of land. can validly be ignored under s. 32-FF for the purpose 
of ascertaining smplus land and acquisition of such surplus land by the 
State and that section is protected by Art. 31-A, it is difficult to say why 
s. 32-KK which, 09uates a Hindu undivided family 
with an individual 
landowner for the limited purpose of the Act without affecting the other 
rights of its members is not equally protected by that Article. The object 
of enacting s. 32-KK was to prevent the landowner and his descendants 
by reason of their constituting a Hindu undivided family from each of 
them claiming in his own right the permissible area from the joint hold-
ing of the family and thus retain for themselves in the aggregate area 
larger than 30 standard acres and preventing thereby distribution of sur-
plus area. 
!608 F-Hl 
The contention that the section is not one relating to agrarian reform 
is hardly sustainable in view of the objects of the Act in general and of 
s. 32-KK u, particular. Similarly. the contention that the section has the 
affect of defeating the rights of a member of a Hindu undivided family 
from the family proryerty also cannot be sustained because his rights in the 
permissil>le area retained by the landowner and his right to compensation 
in respect of the surplu. area are not touched by the section. Nor is it 
possible to say that the section results in the transfer of rights of the des-
cendants of a landowner in th~ permissible or surplus area in favour of 
<Uch landowner. The section does not effect any change in the rights of 
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f!967] 3 S.C.R. 
the descendants as members of a Hindu undivided family or the relation-
ship of the family inter se except to the extent of depriving th~ descendants 
of their right to claim the ceiling area for each .of them. 
[609 B-BJ 
The decision of Ranjit Singh v. The State of Puniab ([1965] I S.C.R. 
82) points out that the fixing of ceiling on lands and provisions refatiog 
to it would form part of and constitute agrarian reform and, therefore, 
such provisions would have the protection of Art. 31-A. [607 HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 92 of 
!966. 
Appeal from the order dated May 30, 1963 of the Punjab 
High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 148 of 196:3. 
R. V. S. Mani and M. L. Agarwal, for the appellants. 
Dipak Dutt Chaudhuri and R. N. Sachthey, for the respon-
dents. 
S. K. Mehta, and K. L. Mehta, for the interveners. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. 
The appellants are members of a Hindu undivided 
family of which the firs~ appellant is the Karta. Prior to August 
21, 19 5 6, the family 
owned 64. 3 5 standard acres. of land in 
village Kurali, Distri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.