LexPRITAM SINGH CHAHIL versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PRll'AM SINGH CHAHIL A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. February I, 1967 [K. SueBA RAO, C.J., J. C. SHAH, J.M. SHELAT, B V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER,JJ.) Pt/ml Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, as amended by Act XV of 1956 and Act Ill of 1959, s. 32FF-CeUlng fixed on land under penoNd Cllltlvallon of lt:ndlwkhr-Transfers to cerlaJn re/aJioru to be ignored for purpose of ceiling-Such relalions enumerated by r. 2JA framed JUUkr the Act by Guvernmen1-Validity of s. 32FF-Whedter C ruUen from excessive de/egatlon--Rlght under Art.. 31A, 2nd proviso, Coutltutl<NI of lntJia, whether affected. The petitioner owned certain land in the ellltwbilc State of Pepsu. Afur August 21,, 1956 he transferred one half of the •aid land in favour of his wife. Aft.er this transfer the land remaining in the hands of the petitiooer was less than the ceiling of 30 standard acres prescribed by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agrieultural Lands Act, 1955 as ameodod by Act XV of D 1956. However by s. 32FF introduced into the above Act by Act III of 1959 it was laid down that transfers of land after August 21, 1956 to certain relations (to be named by the State Government) were Dot to affect the rislit of the State Oovemmeot under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be eniitled but for such transfer or disposition. By r. 23A framed under the Act the State Guvcmment prescnbed the relations. Rely- ing UpM s, 32FF and r. 23A the Special Colll:ctor, Chandigarh illduded in the total area held by the petitioner the land transferred by him in i: favour of bis wife and served on him ,. draft statement holdin,g that a cer- tain e><teot of hi• land was surplus area. The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of the' Constitution challenging the Special Collector's order and lbe validity of the Act, It wu urged in support of the petition that : (i) By adding the land ttalllferred to certain relations to the land held by a person UDder bis personal cultivation for the purpose of determining the celling and the F aurplus area a. 32FF of the Act and r. 23 of the rules made thereunder contravened Art. 3 IA, 2nd proviso; (ii) The legislature without enumerat- ing the relations or indicating some principles for ascertaining the relations abdicated its legislative function and delegated it to the State Government to presc:n'be the relations and therefore s. 32FF was void; (iii) The rules &=."~ for fixing compensation for the land acquired were ullro vius they did not lake into account the current valUe of the cron- raised thereon; and the Stale therefore was interfering with the petitioner'> G riglit lo the land, unsupp<.'rted by law. HEID : (i) Section 32FP was enccted in order to prevent transfec of land to relations with a view to evading the provisions of the 1956 Act which imposed a ceiling on the land under the personal cultivalioo of the landholder. The Legislature certainly is competent to make such a law. The validity of such a provision may perhaps be questioned under certain H circumstances on the ground that it is an unreasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. But that was not open to the petitioner as the amending Act giving retrospective operation relale' to an 'estate'. Therefore Art. 31A operates dS a bar against raising any such B c D E G .H .. PRITAM SINGH v. PUNJAB (Subba Rao, C.J.) 537 question. Section 32FF is therefore valid and as the land acquired in the preaent case was admittedly above the ceiling, the second proviso to Art. 31 had no application. [541 A-DJ (ii) From the mere fact that the enumeration of relations for the purpose of s. 32FF is left to the State Government it cannot be &aid that the Legislature had abdicated its function. It has clearly· laid down the policy and on :be basis of that policy enumeration can easily be worked out. Tho expression 'relation' is comprehensive and has a local significance. The relatives must be such as those in whose favour benami tn111.-ac1ions are usually entered into or those whose benefit is indirectly the benefit of the lrallsferor himself. It is such relations who are men boned lo r. 23A allhough tho mention of sisters has been omitted by mistake. [541 B- O] (iii) The validity of the rules prescribed for fixing compensation could not be decided by the Court for want of relevant materials qn the record. [S4S Hl OiuOINAL JURISDICTION : Writ t>etition No. 110 of 1966. Pet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.