KIRPAL SINGH & ORS. versus KAMLA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 28-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
KIRPAL SINGH & ORS.
v.
KAMLA DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2020)
JANUARY 28, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Haryana Ceiling of Land Act, 1972:
ss. 8(3) and 33(2) (ii) – Proceedings under Punjab Security
of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – For determination of surplus land –
During pendency of proceedings enactment of Haryana Ceiling of
Land Act – The original land-owner sold certain area of land and
gave the Khasra numbers of the sold lands, in surplus pool – Notice
was issued to the vendee to vacate the land, the same being surplus
land – Collector held that the surplus land was to be taken from the
land of the owner, and vendee’s land could be taken into account
only if the surplus land could not be completed from the land of the
owner – In Revision filed by land-owner, it was held that the land-
owner could not be forced to exclude the land in question from
surplus area – The order was further upheld by Financial
Commissioner – Writ petition filed by vendee – The vendee further
sold the land to the appellant – High Court allowing the writ remitted
the matter to consider the case of the vendee for grant of benefit
envisaged u/s. 8(3) of 1972 Act – Writ appeal was decided in favour
of the original land-owner – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
Section 33(2)(ii) of 1972 Act provides that repeal of 1953 Act would
not affect the pending proceedings as regards surplus land and
would be continued and disposed of as per 1953 Act – Therefore,
provisions of ss. 8(3) and 9(3) of 1972 Act could not have been
applied to the pending proceedings – Punjab Security of land
Tenures Act, 1953 – ss. 5A, 5B and 5C.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972
was enacted w.e.f. 23.12.1972 on which date the proceedings for
determination of surplus in the hands of original land-owner which
were initiated in 1953 were pending. Section 33 of 1972 Act deals
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 418
418
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
with “Repeal and Saving”. The Punjab Security of land Tenures
Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Tenancy Act and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1955 which were operating in erstwhile State of Punjab were
repealed by Section 33(1). Sub-section (2) of Section 33 provided
that repeal of the provisions of above mentioned two acts shall
not affect certain proceedings. Section 33(2)(ii) thus clearly
provides that repeal of 1953 Act shall not affect the proceedings
for determination of surplus areas pending immediately before
the commencement of 1972 Act under the provisions of 1953
Act which shall be continued and disposed of as if this Act had
not been passed. [Paras 11 and 12][427-D-F; 428-G-H]
2. The legislative intent as reflected in Section 33 makes it
clear that the proceedings for determination of surplus area which
was pending on 23.12.1972 was to be continued and disposed of
as if 1972 Act had not been passed. Thus, in continuation of the
disposal of pending proceedings, 1972 Act was not to be taken
into consideration in any manner. [Para 13][429-A-B]
Jiwas Das (DEAD) through LRS. v. Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others, (1998) 8
SCC 740; Bhagwati Devi v. State of Haryana and others
(1994) Supp 3 SCC 101 : [1994] 1 SCR 180– relied
on
3. Section 3(l) of 1972 Act provided that Permissible Area
means the extent of land specified in Section 4. The Permissible
Area as defined in Section 4 of 1972 Act was reduced as compared
to Permissible Area under 1953 Act. Sections 8 and 9 occurs in
Chapter 2 of 1972 Act under the heading “Ceiling on land and
acquisition and disposal of surplus Area”. Section 8 contains the
heading “Certain transfers (or dispositions) not to affect surplus
area.” Section 9 contains a heading “Selection of permissible area
and persons required to furnish declaration”. As per strength of
Section 9(3), the land owner while selecting land within
permissible area has to include any transfer made by him after
the appointed date in contravention provisions of Section 8. The
permissible Area and selection as occurring in Section 9 has to
be read in reference to permissible area as referred to in Section
KIRPAL SINGH & ORS. v. KAMLA DEVI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
3(l) read with Section 4 and selection there on. The selection of
permissible area occurring in Section 9 and requirement to include
in such selection land transferred by land owner after the
appointed date i.e. 25.03.1972 is in ref

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