LexSHIVDEV SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 K. Chinnaswamy Reddy •• State of Andhra P1adeah Wanchoo J. 1962 426 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [196S) other accused should also be set aside and his appeal should also be re-heard in the manner in- dicated above. We therefore set aside the order of the High Court with respect to the retrial of the other accused and direct that his appeal will also be re-heard along with the appeal of the appellant. Appeal allowed. SHIVDEV SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (And Connected Petition) . (B.P. SrNHA, C.J., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuB•A RAO, K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Delegated Legislation-Ceiling on land fixed-Exemption of efficiently managed farms-Part of rule going beyond rule- making power-Not severable-Whole rule ultra virea-The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu 13 of 1955), as amended by Act XV of 1956, ss. 32A, 32K- Rules, 1958, r.31. The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural ·Lands Act was enacted in March, 1955. It was amended iil October, 1956, and Ohs. IV-A and IV-B were added. Chapter IV-A pro- vides for ceiling on land and s. 32-A in that chapter fixes the permissible limit of land which could be owned or held by any person as landlord or tenant under his personal culti- vation. Section 32K provides for exemption of efficiently managed farms consisting of compact blocks on which heavy investment or permanent structural improvements had been made, and whose· break·up was likely to lead to a fall in production. Rules were framed in March, 1958, to carry out the purposes of the Act. Rule 31 lays down the procedure how the exemption of efficiently managed farms was to be determined. Sub.rule (2) provides that the PEPSU Land Commission, which was to be appointed to advise the State Government with regard to the exemption of lands from the .. ' -... 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 427 ceiling in accordance with the provisions of .s. 32K, shall assign marks in the manner provided in sub-r. (4) in order to decide whether a farm was efficiently managed or not, and whether it consisted of compact blocks on which heavy invest· ment or permanent structural improvements had been made and whose break-up was likely to lead to a fall in production. Farms were classified as Class A, Class B and Class C farms. Class A farm was to be deemed to be an efficiently managed farms, 50% of the area of a farm of Class B was to be deemed to be an efficiently managed farm, and no area under a farm of Class C was to be deemed to be an efficiently managed farm. In writ petitions filed in this court, the petitioners did not challenge the constitutionality of Ohs. IV-A and IV-B, but they challenged the constitutionlity ofr. 31. Their con- tention was that the Commission when enquiring into their claim of exemption under s. 32K(i)(iv) of the Act was bound to follow the requirem~nts of r. 31 in addition to the fulfil . ment of the conditions laid down ins 32K(i)(iv). The Peti- tioners contended that the standards of yields prescribed in Schedule C under r. 31 were arbitrary, obnoxious, unreason- able, hypothetical, completely unrealistic and unattainable in any modern farm and were repugnant to the provisions of the Act. The system of marking evolved under r. 31 was completely alien and foreign to the Act. Rule 31 went beyond the power conferred on the State Government under s. 32K and was ultra vires the Act. The rule was a colourable piece of legislation and the object of framing it was to defeat the purpose of the Act so that no exemption may be granted although the legislature intended to grant exemption to efficiently managed farms. The rule fettered the judgment and discretion of the Commission which could not be done under the Act. Held, that, Ohs. IV-A was a measure of land reform and was intended to provide for equitable distribution of land and with that object s. 32-A provided for ceiling on land holding by an individual. Before a farm could claim exemption from the ceiling fixed in s. 32-A, it had to be proved that the farm was efficiently managed, it consisted of compact blocks, heavy investment or permanent structural improvements had been made on it and its break-up was likely to lead to fall in production. The first three conditions were concerned with the efficiency of the farm and the fourth with the yield from the farm. 1982 S hivdev Singh .... The Stat• of Punja b 196t Sldvdev Singh y. Thi State of Punjab 428 SUPR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.