LexRANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RANill SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE 01' PUNJAB AND OTHERS (And Connected Appeals) August 20, 1964 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. I., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYAT- ULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPAL.\ AYYANGAR IJ.) East Punjab Holdings (Con.rolidation and Pr.ventlon of Fragmtnla· lion) Act (50 of 1948) as amended by Punjab Act (27 of 1960) and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (I of 1954)-Validlty-- Constitution of India, 1950, Arrs. 19, 31 and 31-A. & a mult of procecdinp for consolidation of holdings in certain villages in Punjab, some lallds had been taken away from the propric· ton, reserved and given ·over to the village panchayats or allotted to aoni>roprietors, under powers derived from various enactments, namefy, the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmenta· tion) Act (L of 1948) as amended by Punjab Act (27 of 1960), the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act ( 4 of 1953) and the Punjab Village Commoo Lands (Regulation) Act (I of 1954). Under ·s. 7 of the last Act the proprietors were not entitled to any compensation. They challenged by writ petitions the •·alidity of the proceedings and the enactments undor which the proprietor's interest was acquired without ccimpensation as being in breach of Arts. 19(1)(() and 31 of the Constitution. The High Court di.<misscd them following its own full bench decision in Jagat Singh v. Punjab State, ( 1962) P.L.R. 241. In appeals to the Supreme Court, it was contended that : (i) The Full Bench decisic'n was not correct in view of the decision in K. K. Kochuni v. Staie of Madras [1960) 3 S.C.Jt. 887, and (ii) the Amending Act (27 of 19601 and the Regulation Act (I of 1954) were ultra vires. HELD : (i) The Full Bench decision was right. [94C-D]. The view taken by this Court has always been in favour of giving a large and liberal meaning to the terms "estate", "rights in an Cllale" and "extinguishment and modification" of such rights in Art. 31-A of t1te Con•titution of India. and nlso, to give a wide meaning to the expreuioa "agrasian reform". [93C-D; 94A·B). The enactments referred to above and the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act ( 10 of 1953) are all part of a general scheme of agrarian reforms and the modification of rights envisaged oy them bad the pro- tection of Art. 31-A. [95B.C]. Case law considered. The Kochuni case [1960) 3 S.C.R. 887 did not involve any agrarian · reform. It conside~ a ba;e transfer of the rights of the sthanu to tloe tanvad without alteration of the tenure and without any pretence of agra- rian reform. That was a special case and could not be applied to C85C!I where the general scheme of legislation was definitely •granan re· form. [94B.CJ. (ii) 1be changes.froposed by the consolidation proceedings were included in the gener scheme of planning of rural areas and the pro- ductive utilisation of vacant and waste lands. If agrarian reforms aze to succeed, mere distribution of land to the landless is not enough. 1bere muat be a proper planning of rural economy and C<'nditions. A scheme A B c D F c. G • ff RANJIT v. STATB (Hidayatullah J.) 83 A which makes villages self..,Ufficient cannot but be regarded as· part of the larger reforms which consolidation of holdings, fixing of ceilinp on lands, distribution of surplus lands and utilising of vacant and wute lands contemplate. (94 .E-G; 95A-B). B Quaere : What is the relevance and bearing of Art. 31-A as amend· ed by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 on the c-. (900-E]. . CML APPELLATE JurusDICTION : Civil Appeal N:i. 743 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated December 13, 1961, and September 12, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in C.W. No. 319 of 1961 and Civil Writ No. 454 of 1958 c and Letters Patent No. "388 of 1958 respectively. Bishan Narain, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appel- lants (in C.As. Nos. 553 & 554/1962). Bishan Narai_., and D. Goburdhun, for the appellant (in C.A No. 743/1963). D R. Ganapathy Iyer and B.R.G.K. Ar:har, for the respon- E dents (in C.As. Nos. 553 and 554/1962) and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in C.A. No. 743/1963). S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respondent No. 4 (in C.A. No. 743/1963). . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah J. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 and 'Civil Appeals No. 553 and 554 of 1962. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.