LexSUKHRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER versus SMT. HARBHEJI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
! 752 SUKHRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER v. SMT. HARBllEJI February 19, 1969 [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.] I U.P. Zamindari Abolition end Land Reforms Act 1951-Sections 21 and i51-Amertdment by Act 20 of 1954-Express provision for re- trospective application of atnended s. 21-No provision for retrospective effect of s. 157-lf s. 157 also deemed to have been emended retrospec- tively-Stc.ten1ent b,v Con1pensation Officer under section 240(F)-When final. The respondent as Blmmidhar filed an objection under section 240( G) of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Abolition Act, 1961. in respect of a pre- liminary statement compiled by the Compensation Officer under section 240(F) showing the appellants as Adhivasis of certain land. The objection was dismissed by the Compensation Officer on October 25, 1956. who held that the appellants had Adhivasi rights and the objector had no in- terest in the land. The Compensation Offider decided the matter without framing an issue and referring it for decision to a competent court. In the meantime, in consolidation proceedings the respondent applied for cor- rection of the records under section 10(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, but her objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. How- ever, on appeal. the Settlement Officer, (Consolidation), reversed this de· cision holding that the appellants were Asainis. The Director of ConsO- lidation, U .P. dismissed a revision application. In these consolidation proceedings, the respondent claimed the advantage of the amendment of secltion 21(h) and section 157 introduced by the U.P. Land Reforms Act, XX of 1954, on the ground that her husband was suffering from physical infirmity and was incapable of cultivating land. The appellants' conten· tion was that while section 21 had been expressly amended to have re- trospective effect, the amendment of section 157 was not effective retros' pectively; the respondent was therefore not entitled to claim the advantage from the amendment of section 157. It was further contended by the appellants that the order of the Compensation Officer made on October 25, 1956, had finally decided the status of the appellants as Adhivasis and not having been appealed against, the question could not now be reopened. HELD: Section 157(1)(a) must be read to apply retrospectively. A &. c F If the new s. 21 (h) is to be read retrospec/tively from the commence· ment of Land Reforms Act. the amendment of section 1Sl(l) which was made simultaneously must also be clearly intended to operate with re.. G trospection. There would be no point in making the amendment of s. 21 (h) retrOiSpective if the other clauses were to apply prospectively for then the force of the retrospectivitv of clause (h) of s. 21 would be made neutral. [759 E-F] A law is undoubtedly retrospective if the law says so expressly but it is not always necessary to say so expressly to malle it retrospective. ll There are occasions when a law may be held to be retrospective in opera· lion. Retrospection is not to be presumed for the presumption is the - other way but many statutes have been regarded as retrospective without , a decllaration. Thus it is that remedial sta~es are always regarded as A B c SUKHRAM V. HARBHEJI (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 7 53 prospective but declaratory statutes are considered retrospective. Similarly sometimes statutes have a retrospective effect \.vhen the declared intention is cleatly and unequivocally manifest from the language employed in the particular· 1aw or in the context of connected provisions. It is always a question whether the legislature has sufficiently expressed itself. To find this one must look at the general scope and purview of the Act and the remedy the legislature intends to apply in the fOrmer state of the law and then determine what the legislature intended to do. This line of investiga- tion is, df course, only open if it is necessary. [758 HJ Main v. Stark [1890] 15- A.C. 384 at 388; referred to. The Order of the Compensation Officer under s. 240-F did not have that finality which was claimed for it. That finality attaches only to the order of the Assistant Collector under s. 229-B on a reference of an issue from the Compensation Officer. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 666 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment ·and order dated September 20, 1963 of the Deputy Di.rector of Consolidation, U.P. Luck
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.