LexSTATE OF HARYANA ETC. versus SAMPURAN SINGH ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
626 STATE OF HARYANA ETC. V. SAMPURAN SINGH ETC. September 3, 1975 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA ANDS. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] Construction. of Statutes-lnterpretatidn of lc.v1d reform statutes or agrarian laws-Cv11struc11on to .'?ron1ote the general purpose of the act-Pu1njab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953-Section lOA and I9B-Va!idity of the Transfers reducing surplus lands. . The respondents wer~ smaH land owners within the n1eaning of Punjab Secur- ntY_ of' Land TenL~nes Act, 1953. The respondents, later on inherited certain lands whrch together with the lands already held by them exceeded the ceiling area. The respon~ents, therefore, ceased to be small ]and-owners. The respondents rhereaf~·er d1veste4 thernsielves of the excess lands by executing gift deed, mort- ga~e with possession and pursuant to decrees passed in favour of their near re- lations. The Collector after investigating into the matter declared the lands in exces.s of the ceiling area as surplus lands and ignored the subsequent transfers. An appeal filed by the respondents was rejected by the Commissioner. Respon~ dents Revision Applications to the Financial Commissioner were also rejected. The respondent~ thereafte1: filed Writ Petitions in the High Court. The High Court _allowed the Writ Petttions holding that section 19B fead with section JOA did not affect the transfers made by the respondents. According to High Co~rt t_he tran.sfers affected during the period prescribed for filing returns are valtd, since they were consistent with the scheme of the act which requires: that no one '>hould hold land in excess of permissible limits. Section 2(2) of the Act defines s111all land owner as a person owning le~., than certain area of 1<1nd. Permissible area is defined limiting the maxin1un1 pern1issible extent a person nlay hold land. So long as a person· does not hold lands in excess of permissible area he is a small land holder. He can evict his tenants from the holding and be in actual enjoyn1ent as provided by the Act. lf any per~Qn has ]ands beyond the permissible area he becon1es a large land owner and he has to surriender the excess land after choosing the best area he desires to keep. Such excess land goes to the surplus pool which is dis· tributed for the rehabilitation of ejected tenants and landless persons. 'fh'L Act wa'.> amended by inserting section tOA and Section 19B with retrospective effect. Section lOA provides that for the purpose of detcrn1ining the surplu:. area of any person any judgment, decree or order of a Court or authority contained after the· commencen1ent of the Act and having the effect of diminish- ing the area of such person which could have been declared as his surplus area shall be ignored. Section 19B provides that if after the commencement, of the Act any per- son whether as land owner or tenant acquires by inheritance or by bequ-est or gift from a person to whom. he is. an heir or if any person after the com1nence· ment of the Act acquires in any other manr.er any land and which with or without the lands already owned or held by him exceeds in the uggregate the permissible area such a person is required to ry1e a return with. the Collector in the prescribed form giving the ne~ssary pa~Uctdars an~ selecting th~ land not exceeding the permi9Sible area, .which he d'i~sires to re~a1n. The section fui:t-he_r provides that the surplus land in excess of the permissible area would be dtstn· butee among the tenants who are evi'cted or landless persons. On an appeal by certificate under Article 133(l)(c) in one appeal and in an appeal by Special Leave in another allowing the ap~als held. 1. Land reforn1 is so strategic that special constitutional concern has be~n shown for this programme. The State naturally enacted the Act wh~reby_ ceil- ing on land ownershlp was set surplus lands were taken over for setthng e1ected tenants and others. If constitutionally envisioned socio-ec?nornic revolution is A B c - D E F G • H • • • A B c D E F G HARYANA V. SAMPURAN SINGH (Krishna Iyer, J.) 627 not to be a paper tiger, agrarian lands have to be meaningfully enacted, inter- p:re1ed and executed and the Court is not the anti-hero of the Drama of limping land refonn. The· decision of this Court in A111ar Singh's case A.LR. 1974 SC', 994. 996 fellowed. [628 B-C. 631 A] 2. It is settled law that Courts should favour an interpretation that promotes·
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.