STATE OF PUNJAB versus LABH SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 02-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

357 
STATE 
OF 
PUNJAB 
v. 
LABH 
SINGH 
AND 
ANR. 
AUGUST 
2, 1985 
[E.S. VENJ<ATARAMIAH 
AND 
R.B. MISRA, 
JJ.] 
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 
Act, 1955 (Pepsu Act 
13 of 1955) as amended by the (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 sec-
tions 2(f), 32-A, 32-L and 32-M, scope of - Words and phrases -
Construction of the word "transfer" in section 32-L - Whether 
redE!l:lption of mortgaged lands amount to transfer within the mean-
ing of section 32-L. 
Labh Singh, respondent No.l was the ow~er of certain agri-
cultural lands in three villages situated in the district of 
Kapurthala, namely, village Karahal Nauabad, village Isherwa and 
village Brindpur measuring in all 32-8 standard acres. Of them an 
extent of 7-4 standard acres of lsnd .situated in village Brindpur 
had been mortgaged with 
possession by him in favour of One 
Lachman Singh of village Khera Dona before the Pepsu Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 195.5 (Pepsu Act 13 of 1955) came into 
force. The mortgage was subsisting when Chapter IV-A was inserted 
by the (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 (Pepsu Act No.15 of 1956) by 
which sections 32-A to 32-N were introduced. Clause (f) of sec- . 
tion 2 of the Act defines the expression "land owner". The expla-
nation added to the said clause provided that in respect of lsnd 
mortgaged with possession the mortgagee should be deemed to be 
the lsnd owner. The perlilissible limit for the purpose of the Act 
was fixed at 30. standard acres of lsnd by section 3 thereof. In 
view of t!te above, Labh Singh, being in possession of less than 
30 standard acres, 7-4 standard acres being in possession of the 
mortgagee was treated as a small owner not liable to surrender 
any lsnd as surPlus lsnd under the provisions of the Act. But on 
April 1, 1959, Labh Singh got back the possession of 7-4 standard 
acres of lsnd oy redeeming the mortgage. 
On redemption the total 
extent of lsnd in his possession became 32-8 standard acres which 
was in excess of 30 standard acres which had been, prescribed by 
the Act as the perlilissible limit. 
On coming to know that Labh Singh had in his possession land 
in excess of the perlilissible limit, proceedings were started by 
the Revenue authorities to declare the surplus land in his hands 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
II 
c. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
and to take possession of 
the 
surplus 
area. The Collector 
directed Labh Singh to produce a list of Khasara Numbers to be 
surrendered as surplus land within a fortnight therefrom, 
Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Labh Singh preferred an 
appeal before the Commissioner of Jullandur Division. That appeal 
was unsuccessful. A revision petition filed before the Financial 
Commissioner, Plinjab against that order also failed. Labh Singh, 
thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Plinjab 
and Baryana which was also dismissed. 
In the Letters Patent 
Appeal filed before the Division Bench of the High Court by Labh 
Singh it was held (i) that the acquisition made by Labh Singh of 
7-4 standard acres of land on redemption amounted to a transfer 
within the meaning of that expression in section 32-L of the Act 
and that being so by virtue of sub-section 2 of that section the 
tranaf er by which Labh Singh had acquired interest in that land 
must be deemed to be null and void and therefore non-existent; 
and (11) the transfer being non-existent there was no acquisition 
in the eye of law and .consequently, the transfer had to be 
ignored and not to be taken into consideration. Hence the State 
appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Respondent No.l Labh Singh was in possession of 
land in excess of the permissible limit after he redeemed the 
mortgage and he therefore became liable to surrender the surplus 
land, that is, 2-8 standard acres to the Government by virtue of 
section 32-A itself. Even though there was no express machinery 
provided in the Act at the relevant time to deal with the cases 
of this type, the Court is not competent to refuse to give effect 
to the plain words of section 32-A. [365 G-H, 366 A] 
1.2. The scheme of the Act is that no land owner or tenant 
can hold land in excess of the permissible limit and every such 
land owner or tenant holding land in excess of permissibl~ limit 
is liable to surrender the surplus land whatever may be the time 
at which such surplus land is acquired and whatever may be the 
mode of acquisition. 

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