SANT SINGH NALWA & ANR. versus THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & ORS., ETC.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 30-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
330 
SANT SINGH NALWA & ANR. 
v. 
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 
HARYANA & ORS., ETC. 
March 30, 1981 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND A.N. SEN, JJ.] 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, S. 2(5) and Punjab Security of 
~ 
Land Tenures Rules 1953-Annexure 'A'-Classification of land according to 
quantity of yield aud quality of soil-Whether valid. 
The appellants who were displaced persons were allotted land which was 
D 
· entered as sailab land in the revenue records and they became the owners of these 
lands. After the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 
1953, the Revenue Authorities pro~eeded to determine the permissible area of 
the land of the appellants under section 2(3). They allowed 50 standard acres of 
land to each of the appellants and declared the balance as surplus land. 
The appellants claimed that the lands allotted to them as displaced persons 
E 
fell in a portion of District Karna! which was sailab and adna sailab and accord-
ing to the classification made under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 
1953 they did not carry any valuation. The Collector dismissed their application. 
F 
G 
H 
The Commissioner dismissed their appeals holding that the Collector was 
right in treating the surplus area as an unirrigated areas and valuing the same at 
nine annas per standard acre. 
A single Judge accepting the contention of the appellant in his writ petition 
set aside the orders of the Revenue Court. The Financial Commissioner filed an 
appeal which was allowed· by the Division Bench and the writ petition was 
dismissed. 
In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that : (!)whereas sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act directed the Government 
to frame Rules after considering the quantity of the yield and quality of soil, in 
the Rules framed by the Government the main guide-lines laid down by sub-sec-
tion(S)were not followed, and the classification made by the Rules under Annexure 
'A' was arbitrary without determining the quantity of the yield and quality of the 
soil, and (2) that even if the classification made in Annexure 'A' was valid, the 
Reveuue Courts as also the High Courts committed an error of law in misconstru-
ing the classification and in arbitrarily placin2 the surplus area in the category of 
unirrigated land. 
y 
SANT SINGH V. FINANCIAL COMMR. HARYANA 
331 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : l(i) The view of the single Judge is not in consonance with the 
scheme and spirit of the Rules framed under the Act and is bassed on a wrong 
interpretation !of the nature, extent and ambit of the classification made in 
Annexure 'A'. The classification is in accordance with provisions of sub-section 
(5) of section 2 of the Act and is, therefore, constitutionally valid. [337 E-F, G] 
(ii) The Land Resettlement Manual prepared in 1952 by Tarlok Singh shows 
that the classification has been made in a very scientific manner after taking into 
consideration all the relevant factors. The Punjab Settlement Manual (4th 
Edition) prepared by Sir James M. Douie though possessing unimpeachable 
authenticity was made Jong ago arid since then there have been great changes 
resulting from various steps taken by the Government for improving the nature 
and character of the land and the irrigation facilities. Even so, the classification 
made by Sir James Douie has been adhered to broadly and basically by Tarlok 
Singh in his Manual which forms the pivotal foundation for. the schedule 
containing Annexure 'A' framed under the Rules. [335H-336 CJ 
(iii) The classifications of land like barani, sailab, abi, nehri, chahi etc. are 
clearly mentioned in the Punjab Settlement Manual.f0The Rule Making Authority 
has not in any way either departed from the principles mentioned in sub-section(5) 
of section 2 of the Act or violated the guidelines contained therein, nor could it 
be said that the classification made under the Rules has not been made. according 
to the quantity of yield or the quality of the soil. [336 C, D-E] 
(iv) If the dominant object of the act was to take over the surplus area 
according to the formula contained in various provisions of the Act particularly 
sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 2, there is no material on the record to show 
that the Rules do not fulfil or carry out the object contained in the Act. [336 G] 
Jagir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 44 (1965) Lahore Law 
Times 143, appro

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