Civil Appeal No 2033 of 1971
KC Dua and SK Bagga for the Appellant
RK Bhatt for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
Labh Singh respondent No1 herein was the owner of certain agricultural 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 land 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 1955 Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act  came into force
The mortgage was subsisting when Chapter IV A was inserted by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Second Amendment Act 1956 Pepsu Act No 15 of 1956 into the Act
Chapter IV A of the Act which provided for the imposition of ceiling on land and acquisition and disposal of surplus area consisted of Sections 32 A to 32 NN
Section 32 A of the Act read as follows 32 A Ceiling on land 1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law custom usage or agreement no person shall be entitled to own or hold as land owner or tenant land under his personal cultivation within the State which exceeds in the aggregate the permissible limit
360 2 For the purposes of computing the permissible limit under sub section1 the provisions of clauses d and e of sub section 2 of section 3 shall not apply
 The permissible limit for the purposes of the Act was fixed at 30 standard acres of land by Section 3 thereof
Section 32 B of the Act provided that any person who on the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Second Amendment Act 1956 owned or held as landowner or tenant land under his personal cultivation which in the aggregate exceeded the permissible limit should within a period of one month from the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Ordinance 1958 furnish to the Collector a return giving the particulars of all his lands in the prescribed form and manner and stating therein his selection of the parcel or parcels of land not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible limit which he desired to retain and the lands in respect of which he claimed exemption from the ceiling under the provisions of Chapter IV A of the Act
It was further provided that such person should state in the return any transfer or other disposition of land made by him after 21st August 1956 and where a person had furnished a return before the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural lands Amendment Ordinance 1958 he should within the aforesaid period intimate to the Collector any such transfer or other disposition of land made by him
Clause f of section 2 of the Act defined the expression landowner 
The explanation added to the said clause provided that in respect of land mortgaged with possession the mortgagee should be deemed to be the landowner
In view of the above definition the extent of 7 4 standard acres of land which was under mortgage with possession of the commencement of the Act was not to be included in the holding of Labh Singh for purposes of determining the surplus land in his hand but the mortgagee had to be treated as the landowner in respect of that land
Consequently the remaining extent of land in the possession of Labh Singh being less than 30 standard acres he was treated as a small landowner not liable to surrender any land as surplus land under the provisions of the Act
But on April 1 1959 Labh Singh got back the possession of 7 4 standard acres of land by redeeming the mortgage
On redemption the total extent of land 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 permissible limit
Labh Singh did not file any return informing the authority concerned that his holding had exceeded the permissible limit
But on coming to 361 know that Labh Singh had in his possession land in excess of the permissible limit proceedings were started by the Revenue authorities to declare the surplus land in his hands and to take possession of the surplus area
The Collector by his order dated April 25 1967 declared that 2 8 standard acres of land in the hands of Labh Singh was surplus area which he had to surrender
The Collector however did not impose any penalty on Labh Singh for not submitting his return in time on the ground that he being an illiterate person was not aware of the stringent provisions of the Act
Labh Singh was directed to produce a list of Khasra Nos
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 Punjab against that order also falled
Labh Singh thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner Punjab contending that the land which was under mortgage at the commencement of the Act and which was redeemed subsequently could not be taken into consideration for determining surplus area in the hands of the landowner
The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition did not agree with the contention urged on behalf of Labh Singh and dismissed it
In the Letters Patent Appeal filed before the Division Bench of the High Court by Labh Singh against the judgment of the learned Single Judge it was held 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 transfer by which Labh Singh had acquired interest in that land must be deemed to be null and void and therefore non existent
It was further held that the transfer being non existent there was no acquisition in the eye of law
Consequently the transfer had to be ignored and not to be taken into consideration
The Division Bench of the High Court which decided the appeal observed that the so called acquisition is hit by section 32 L of the Pepsu Act and is therefore non existent in the eye of law being null and void and does not have the effect of making Labh Singh the owner of an area exceeding the permissible limit
 In that view of the matter the appeal was allowed and the orders passed by the Revenue authorities culminating in the order of Financial Commissioner and the order of the learned Single Judge were set aside
The High Court declined to consider the effect of section 32 M of the Act on the case
362 This appeal by special leave is filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal
In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer at this stage to sections 32 L and 32 M of the Act as they stood then
They read as follows 32 L Ceiling on future acquisition of Land 1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law custom usage contract or agreement from and after the commencement of the Papsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Second Amendment Act 1956 no person whether as landowner or tenant shall acquire or possess by transfer exchange lease agreement or settlement any land which with or without the land already owned or held by him shall in the aggregate exceed the permissible limit
2 Any transfer exchange lease agreement or settlement made in contravention of the provisions of sub section 1 shall be null and void
32 M Ceiling on future acquisition by inheritance 1 If after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy Act and Agriculture lands Second Amendment Act 1956 any person whether as landowner or tenant acquires by inheritance or by bequest or gift from a person to whom he is an heir any land which with or without the lands already owned or held by him exceeds in the aggregate the permissible limit then he shall within the period prescribed furnish to the Collector a return in the manner specified in Section 32 B giving the particulars to all lands and selecting the land he desires to retain and if the land of such person is situated in more than one Patwar circle he shall also furnish a declaration required by sub section 1 of section 32 BB
1 A If such person failed to furnish the declaration the provisions of sub sections 2 and 3 of section 32 BB shall apply
2 If he fails to furnish the return and select his land within the prescribed period then the Collector 363 may obtain the information and select the land for him in the manner specified in section 32 C 3 The Collector shall then submit a statement to the State Government in the manner specified in section 32 D and issue a notification in the Official Gazette as required by that section
4 The excess land shall then vest in the State Government in accordance with the provisions of section 32 E and compensation therefore shall be payable in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter
 The learned counsel for the State Government relies on section 32 A of the Act which has been already extracted above in support of his contention that on redemption Labh Singh became the holder of agricultural land in excess of the permissible limit and was liable to surrender the surplus land which was over and above the permissible limit
The learned counsel on behalf of Labh Singh however urged that redemption being a transfer of land from the mortgagee to the mortgagor it was hit by section 32 L of the Act and was therefore void under sub section 2 thereof
It being a void transaction could not be taken into consideration for purposes of determining the question whether Labh Singh was in possession of any land in excess of the permissible limit
The case put forward on behalf of Labh Singh proceeds on the assumption that section 32 A 1 which provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law custom usage or agreement no person shall be entitled to own or hold as land owner or tenant land under his personal cultivation within the State which exceeds in the aggregate the permissible limit operated only at the point of time when the said provision came into force and that it would not be applicable to lands acquired subsequently
The scheme of the Act is that no land owner or tenant can hold land in excess of the permissible limit and every such landowner or tenant holding land in excess of permissible 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
Chapter IV A of the Act is intended to place a ceiling upon the holding of land for personal cultivation by a land owner or a tenant in excess of the permissible limit not 364 merely on the date on which it came into force but even subsequently
In Vidya Vati vs The State of Punjab  Ors  in which the Act came up for consideration ShahJ observed thus at page 650 Viewed in the light of that scheme also it is impossible to construe section 32 A as being operative only at the point of time at which the Amending Act incorporating Ch
IV A was brought into force for the words of the section contain no limitation and the scheme of the Act indicates no such implication
It is true that under section 32 B every person who owns or holds as land owner or tenant land under his personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit at the commencement of the Act is required to make a return in respect of his holding
but this is enacted with a view to provide machinery for effectuating the provisions imposing the ceiling on land held at the date on commencement it does not even indirectly suggest that section 32 A is limited in its operation to the point of time at which the Act is brought into force and is spent thereafter
Failure on the part of the Legislature to deal with cases in which at the date on which the Act was brought into force the owner or holder of land was not cultivating the land because he was not in cultivatory possession thereof but was resorted to his possession during the subsistence of the Act cannot also be used to limit the operation of section 32 A1 only to the point of time at which the Act was brought into force
In our judgment the ban imposed by section 32 A operates whenever he is found to own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit Moreover even though the mortgagee is liable to re transfer the land in favour of the mortgagor on redemption of the mortgage such re transfer cannot be treated as equivalent to transfer contemplated under section 32 L of the Act
When a mortgagor mortgages the land with possession he does not cease to be its owner
The equity of redemption still vests in him and on redemption he gets back possession of the mortgaged land
In the context in which the word transfer  is used in section 32 L of the Act it cannot be construed as including within its scope the re transfer of land which takes place on redemption
The Division Bench did not appreciate that its decision had the effect of 365 defeating the purpose and object of the ceiling law
The present case came within the mischief of section 32 A of the Act which was all pervasive
The Division Bench of the High Court did not consider the effect of section 32 A of the Act and also the decision of this Court in Vidya Vati s case supra referred to above
In that case the Court while referring to section 32 L and section 32 M observed thus at page 649 The entire argument is raised on an assumption that s32 A 1 operates only at the date on which the Act was brought into operation that argument in our Judgment is contrary to the plain terms of sec
32 A 1
It is true that sections 32 L and 32 M expressly deal with certain classes of acquisitions after the date of the commencement of the Act but on that account no restriction may be imposed upon the connotation of the expression no person shall be entitled to own or hold occurring in section 32 A of commencement and has no operation in the future
It may be noticed that section 32 L renders all subsequent acquisitions as a result of which the holding of a person of land under his personal cultivation exceeds thirty acres null and void and section 32 M which deals substantially with involuntary acquisitions such as acquisitions by inheritance or bequest sets out the machinery for making declarations and the manner in which the land in personal cultivation in excess of the ceiling will be dealt with
By an appropriate drafting device it may have been possible to detail of these provisions into the other sections but if in the interest of clarity certain specific cases are separately dealt with an intention to restrict the operation of the general provision contained in section 32 A 1 cannot be implied
 It may be added here that section 32 M of the Act has since been amended making it applicable to other kinds of acquisitions also
Admittedly 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 cases of this type the 366 Court is not competent to refuse to give effect to the plain words of section 32 A as observed in Vidya Vati s case supra
The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside
The decisions of the learned Single Judge Financial Commissioner and other Revenue authorities are restored
The authorities under the Act shall now proceed to take possession of the extent of 2 8 standard acres of land from Labh Singh but before doing so they are directed to give an opportunity to Labh Singh by issuing notice to him to exercise his option as regards the parcel or parcels of land equivalent of 2 8 standard acres which he proposes to surrender
If he exercise his option in that regard within one month from the date of such notice the Revenue authorities shall take only those lands offered by him
If he falls to do so the authorities concerned themselves may proceed to take possession of the surplus land in accordance with law
This appeal is accordingly allowed
There shall however he no order as to costs
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
Labh Singh respondent No1 was the owner of certain agricultural 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 land 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 1955 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 No15 of 1956 by which sections 32 A to 32 N were introduced
Clause f of section 2 of the Act defines the expression land owner
The explanation added to the said clause provided that in respect of land mortgaged with possession the mortgagee should be deemed to be the land owner
The permissible limit for the purpose of the Act was fixed at 30 standard acres of land by section 3 thereof
In view of the 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 land as surplus land under the provisions of the Act
But on April 1 1959 Labh Singh got back the possession of 7 4 standard acres of land by redeeming the mortgage
On redemption the total extent of land 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 permissible limit
On coming to know that Labh Singh had in his possession land in excess of the permissible limit proceedings were started by the Revenue authorities to declare the surplus land in his hands 358 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 Punjab against that order also failed
Labh Singh thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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 transfer by which Labh Singh had acquired interest in that land must be deemed to be null and void and therefore non existent and ii 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 11 Respondent No1 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 12
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 permissible 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
Chapter IV A of the Act is intended to place a ceiling upon the holding of land for personal cultivation by a landowner or a tenant in excess of the permissible limit not merely on the date on which it came into force but even subsequently
363 G H 364 A Vidya Vati vs The State of Punjab  Ors followed
359 21 In the context in which the word transfer is used in section 32 L of the Act it cannot be construed of including within its scope the re transfer of land which takes place on redemption
364 H 22 Even though the mortgagee is liable to re transfer the land in favour of the mortgagor on redemption of the mortgage such re transfer cannot be treated as equivalent to transfer contemplated under section 32 L of the Act
When a mortgagor mortgages the land with possession he does not cease to be its owner
The equity of redemption still vests in him and on redemption he gets back possession of the mortgaged land
The present case came within the mischief of section 32 A of the Act which was all pervasive
364 F G 365 A