VIDYA VATI versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 26-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

646 
VIDYA VATI 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
September 26, 1967 
(J. C. SHAH, S. M. SllC:RI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J 
B 
The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural. Lands Act 13 of 1955, .,, 
3:!-A(l) and 32-K-Whether ban on holding !<ind in excesa of per-
. missible limits operates only on excess on date of commencement of 
. Act 15 of 1956 or also in future-Person not in Possession of land on 
date of commencement unable to give undertaking to plant an orchard 
within two years-Therefore unable to claim exemption. for 10 acres 0 
for an orchard-Whether has a remedy. 
The appellant was the owner of 56 standard acres of agricultural 
land in Punjab from which she was ousted in 1954 by certain persons 
who had no title to the land and was restored to possession in 1960 
after a suit filed by her was decreed in her favour. The Pepsu Tenancy 
and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955 was brought into force in 
March, 1955. Under s. 5 of that Act any land· owner owning land ex• 
ceeding 3'.l standard acres was entitled to select for personal cultiva- D 
tion a maximum area of land within the permissible limit and to in-
form the collector of his selection. Since the appellant's land was in 
the occupation of the trespassers at the time, she did not make any 
selection under s. 5. The Act was amended with effect from October 
30, 1956 by the East Punjab Act 15 of 1956 which introduced Chapter 
IV-A and the new s. 32-A(l) provided that no person shall be entitled 
to hold land under his personal cultivation which exceeds in theo 1 
aggregate the permissible limit. 
The appellant submitted a return In the prescribed form in res-
_pect of her land and the collector, after considering her objections, 
declared that she held 21 standard acres in excess of the ceiling pres-
cribed by the Act. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Com-
missioner and a writ petition to quash the order was rejected by the 
High Court. 
l'n appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appel- 1 
!ant (i) that s. 32-A(l) operates only at the point of time when the 
Act. comes into force i.e. October 30, 1956; the ceiling could be en-
forced only if a person owned or held land in excess of the permis-
sible limit on that day or if he acquired or possessed it after the 
commencement of Act 15 of 1956 by transfer, exchange, inheritance 
or any of the other ways expressly covered by ss. 32-L and 32-M; and 
(ii) the appellant should in any event have been permitted to reserve e 
10 acres out of her holding under s. 32-K for an orchard. 
HELD: Dismissing the appeal. 
(i) The ban imposed by section 32-A(!) operates whenever a per-
son is found to own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding 
the permissible limit. [650G] 
Although ss. 3:!-L and 32-M deal expressly With certain classes ot R 
acquisitions after the date of commencement of the Act ·on that ac-
count no restriction can be imposed upon the connotation of the ex-
pression "no person. shall be entitled to own or held" occurring In 
s. 32-A, that it is limited in its operation to the point of commence.. 
ment of the Act. [64913-D] 
VIDYA VA'fl V 
PUNJAB (S/UJh, J.) 
647 
A 
Such an interpretation is also contrary to the scheme of the Act. 
Under the scheme of Chapters II, Ill and IV as they originally stood 
the tenants were given the right to purchase the lands not selected 
by the landowner for personal cultivation, but the landowner was 
otherwise subject to no further restrictions; by Ch. IV-A it was in-
tended to place a ceiling upon the owning or holding of land for per-
sonal cultivation by a landowner or a tenant in excess of the penniS-1 
sible limit and to provide that the excess land be appropriated to the 
B State. [650B, C] 
(ii) In order to qualify for the exemption for land up to 10 acres 
under s. 32-K for planting an orchard, the landowner has to give an 
undertaking that he will bring the land within two years from the 
commencement of the Amending Act under an orchard•, has to plant 
the orchard within that period, and to maintain it as such till the 
d'ate of the grant of exemption. A person like the appellant who i~ 
O not in possession of the land at the date when the Amending Act ill 
brought into force may not be in a position to give and fulfill the; 
undertaking. The legislature has not made any provision for extend-
ing the time in respect of special cases like the present or for ex-
tending the time for planting an orchard; it is for the legislature to 
'rec

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