Case: Vidya Vati Vs. The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

If the land so selected was in the possession of a tenant, he could, subject to the restrictions contained in S. 7-A, evict the tenant. The lands which were not selected for personal cultivation by the landowner could be purchased by the tenant in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in S. 22. The Legislature thereafter modified the scheme of the Act and incorporated Ch IV-A under which no person could own or hold land either as landowner or as tenant in excess of the permissible limit The excess was to be treated as surplus land and appropriated to the State. Whereas under the scheme of Chapters II, III 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 intended to place a ceiling upon the owning or holding of land for personal cultivation by a landowner or a tenant in excess of the permissible limit.6.Viewed in the light of that scheme, also, it is impossible to construe S. 32-A is 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 S. 32-B every person who owns or holds as landowner 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 that is enacted with a view to provide machinery for effectuating the provisions imposing the ceiling on land held at the date of commencement: it does not even indirectly suggest that S. 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 restored to his possession during the subsistence of the Act, cannot also be used to limit the operation of S. 32-A (1) only to the point of time at which the Act was brought into force. In our judgment the ban imposed by S. 32-A operates whenever he is found to own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit.7. Section 32-K provides for exemption of lands used or intended to be used for certain specified purposes to the extent indicated from the ceiling imposed by S. 32-A (1). By Cl. (vi) of S. 32-K (1) it is provided that the provisions of S. 32-A shall not apply where a landowner gives an undertaking in writing to the Collector that he shall, within a period of two years from the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, plant an orchard in any area of his land not exceeding ten standard acres, such area of land. Sub-section (2) of S. 32-K provides that where a landowner has, by an undertaking given to the Collector, retained any area of land with him for planting an orchard, and fails to plant the orchard within a period of two years referred to in Cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1), the land so retained by him shall on the expiry of that period vest in the State Government under S. 32-E. It is also provided by sub-s. (3) which was added by Punjab Act 27 of 1962 with retrospective effect from October 30, 1956, that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the exemption specified in Cl. (vi) of sub-s. (1) shall not be allowed unless the land planted within the period specified therein is found to be an orchard also at the time of granting the exemption.In order to qualify for exemption from the ceiling to the extent of ten acres for the purpose of 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, and has to plant the orchard within that period and to maintain it as an orchard till the date of the grant of exemption. A person who is not in possession of the land at the date when the Amending Act is brought into force may not ordinarily be in a position to give an undertaking under Cl. (vi) of S. 32-K (1) to bring the land under an orchard, since such a person may not be able to say whether he will he able to obtain possession of the land so as to carry out the undertaking. The Legislature has failed to make a provision enabling reservation to be made by persons belonging to the exceptional class to which the appellant belongs. But on that account the Court is not competent to refuse to give effect to the plain words of the Act. A lacuna undoubtedly exists in the Act, but it is for the Legislature to rectify it and not for the courts to give a strained meaning to the words used by the Legislature which they do not bear. The expression "within a period of two years from the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act 1956" cannot be read as "within two years from the date on which the holder or tenant is restored to possession." The Legislature has not made any provision for extending the time in respect of certain special cases like the one before us, or extending the time for planting an orchard. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the appellant could not claim an additional area of ten acres of land for planting an orchard.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The entire argument is raised on an assumption that S. 32 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 teens of S. 32-A (1). It is true that Ss. 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 S. 32-A, that it is limited in its operation to the point of commencement and has no operation in the future. It may be noticed that S. 32-L renders all subsequent acquisitions as a result of which the holding of a person of lane under his personal cultivation exceeds thirty acres "null and void", and S. 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 dovetail 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 S. 32-A (1) cannot bescheme of the Act, therefore, was that the landowner was entitled to select for personal cultivation from the land held by him within the State any parcel or parcels of land not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible limit. If the land so selected was in the possession of a tenant, he could, subject to the restrictions contained in S. 7-A, evict the tenant. The lands which were not selected for personal cultivation by the landowner could be purchased by the tenant in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in S. 22. The Legislature thereafter modified the scheme of the Act and incorporated Ch IV-A under which no person could own or hold land either as landowner or as tenant in excess of the permissible limit The excess was to be treated as surplus land and appropriated to the State. Whereas under the scheme of Chapters II, III 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 intended to place a ceiling upon the owning or holding of land for personal cultivation by a landowner or a tenant in excess of the permissible limit.6.Viewed in the light of that scheme, also, it is impossible to construe S. 32-A is 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 S. 32-B every person who owns or holds as landowner 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 that is enacted with a view to provide machinery for effectuating the provisions imposing the ceiling on land held at the date of commencement: it does not even indirectly suggest that S. 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 restored to his possession during the subsistence of the Act, cannot also be used to limit the operation of S. 32-A (1) only to the point of time at which the Act was brought into force. In our judgment the ban imposed by S. 32-A operates whenever he is found to own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding the permissibleLegislature has failed to make a provision enabling reservation to be made by persons belonging to the exceptional class to which the appellant belongs. But on that account the Court is not competent to refuse to give effect to the plain words of the Act. A lacuna undoubtedly exists in the Act, but it is for the Legislature to rectify it and not for the courts to give a strained meaning to the words used by the Legislature which they do not bear. The expression "within a period of two years from the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act 1956" cannot be read as "within two years from the date on which the holder or tenant is restored to possession." The Legislature has not made any provision for extending the time in respect of certain special cases like the one before us, or extending the time for planting an orchard. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the appellant could not claim an additional area of ten acres of land for planting an orchard.