STATE OF PUNJAB (NOW HARYANA) AND ORS. versus AMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 21-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

152 
STATE OF PUNJAB (NOW · HARYANA) AND ORS. 
A 
'II. 
AMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER 
January 21, 1974 
[D. G. PALEJCAR, V. R. KRISHNA lYEil AND R. S. SARIWUA, JJ.) 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 c-f 1953) Ss. lOA and 18-
Scope o/. 
· Interpretation of Statutes. 
Section JOA(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenu.a Act, 1953, provides that 
no transfer or other disp01ition of land which is comprised in a surplus area [as defined 
in s. 2(Sa)[, at the commencement of the Act, aball affect the utilization thereof for 
the resettlement of e.iected tenants; and s. lOA(c) provides that for the purpose of 
determining the surplus area, any judgment, decree ·or order of a court or otMr fllltlw-
rity, which diminishes the surplus area, shall be ignonld. Under the Act, landowners 
who had land in excess of the 'permissible aree' coluld reserve for themselves lands· 
to the extent of the permissible area; and the relit, excluding the pertni.uible area of 
the tenants, was the surplus area of the landoWner. Section 18 pro~lde3 that a 
teoant who baa been in conttnuous occupation of the land comprised ln his tenancy 
for a tirlnimum period of 6 Y~. shall be entitled to ~base from the landowner, 
the land eo held by him. 
At tbe coi1UJiencement of the Act. on April IS, 1933, a landowner owned three 
items of property which did not fom1 part of her ~ 
area. One of the item& 
wa• under her self-cultivation while there weft tenants on the other' two. Thoao 
tenants later gave up possesalon llPd abandoned the laD<b. The landowner made a 
sift of the 3 itema to her daushtc:.r, w~o 10ld them to her husba.Dd an4 his brothet-; 
the Jst and 2nd xesponl!ents respecUvcly. 
The Collector (Surplus Area), while 
detenninins the surplus area of the IIUldowne.r, iJDORCI tho gifu and ulcs. and in· 
eluded t.be 3 items tn' tbe landowner's swplus area. The mpoodents appealed to 
the Commissioner. TheY also applied to the Aai&tant Collector under s. 18, for 
purchase of the lands in their posse.1Sion on the ground of continuous occupation 
for 6 years. The applications were allowed on the basis of a compromise between 
tbe applicants (respondents) and the landowner, and the respondents paid the 
purch~~5e price determined by the Assistant Collector. On the basis of those pur· 
chase orders, the Commissioner, set aside the order of the Collector (Surplus Area) 
declaring the surplus area· of the landowner, and directed him to inquire into the 
matter afresh. The Collector (the Al'.stt. Collector who had allowed the purchases 
by the respondents had by then become Collector (Surplus Area)) thereupon deter-
mined the surplus area of the landowner under s. lOA( c). He, however, held that the 
leases granted to the respondents were collusive and that the orders of purchase 
under s. 18 were ineffective, and included the 3 items apin in the landowner's surplus 
area. 
The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions of the respondents on the ground 
that the authority acting under s. lOA( c) could not ianore the purchase orders passed 
under s. 18. 
Allowing the appeals to this Court, 
HELD : Pe, Palekar and Krishna Iyer, 11. (Satl:aria J. dissenting) : l(a) The 
public policy of s. lOA cannot be outwitted by consent ~rs calculated to defeat the 
provision, and, without the statutory authority charscd with the inquiry being satis-
fied about the bonafides of and eligibility for, the purchase. (17SG) 
When high public policy finds expression in socio-economic legislation contrac-
tual arrangements between interested individuals, sanctified into consent or com· 
promise decrees or orders cannot be binding on t~e instrumentalities of the State 
called upon to enforce the statute, although the tnbunals, enjoined to .enforce the 
Jaw, may \,<Ike probative note of the rec:itals in such compromise or consent statements 
in proof of facts on which their jurisdiction depends. Neither the materials on 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
j 
I 
I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
PUNJAB V. AMAA SINGH 
153 
record in the present cnse, nor the recitals in th c 
· 
· 
of the judicial mind. (174CJ 
' 
e ompromlse, d1sclose the application 
(b) It was found by the Collector (Sur tu A 
· 
have been collusively got op to dwindle the ~u s 1 rca) th~t the le3scs in question 
· !he landowne.r had conspired with her son-in-l~~ ~s :n~~ ob theh landown~r and that 
m contraventiOn of the Jaw 
Fur!hcr S 18 a r n 
1
1s rot er to rct:un the area 
tenants. In th! present ca~e the lea' · 
PP lcs on Y to persons who a

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