Case: State Of Haryana Etc Vs. Sampuran Singh Etc

that if, after the commencement of the Act, April 15, 1953, any person acquires any land by inheritance or bequest or gift which, with the lands already held by him exceed in the in the permissible area, than he shall furnish to the Collector a return indicating the permissible area he desire s to retain. This he shall do within the prescribed period [S 19B(1)]. If he defaults to make the return, the Collector will select the land for him [19B(2). He will suffer a penalty for failure to furnish the declaration [19B(3)]. The excess land, i.e., the surplus area shall be at the disposal of Government for utilization under s. 10-A [19B(4)1. The surplus land will be used for re-settlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under cl. (i) sub-s. (1) of s. 9 or other purpose notified by Government. The profound concern of the law to preserve the surplus stock is manifest from the obligation cast by sub-ss. (1) and (4) of 19B to declare and deliver excess lands. How you came to hold the excess is not the question. Why you should be permitted to keep more than what others can lawfully own is the query. A might have acquired by paying hard cash might have received by gift and by bequest and D by settlement and by partition. The agrarian policy is equitable ownership and the reform philosophy is re-distributive justice the rural goal being small peasant proprietorship. What difference does it make as to how you came by a large holding from the standpoint above outlined? The thrust of s. 1 9-B is that even if the source of the excess area is inheritance, bequest of gift, the capacity to own is conditioned by the permissible limit. Section 10-A does not militate against this mandate of s. 19-B. Indeed, s. 19-B had to be enacted because the High Court took the view that area which became surplus subsequent to April 15, 1953 was not hit by the ceiling set and land acquired by an heir by inheritance is saved from utilisation by the State. Section 10-(a) is wide in its terms and encompasses all surplus area, howsoever obtained. Even s. 10A(b) strikes not discordant note. All that it says and means is that lands acquired by an heir by inheritance are saved in so far as dispositions of such lands are concerned. T he drafting of the saving clause is cumbersome but the sense is and, having regard to the conspectus, can only be that although in the hands of the propositus, it is surplus land, if among the heirs it is not, then their transfers will not be affected by the interdict of s. 10-A(a) the sins of the father shall not set the teeth of the children on edge. If the heirs are otherwise small holders, the fact that their father was a large owner will not deprive the former of their heritage , if it is less than the permissible area. We see no conflict between s. 10-A and 19B. Assuming some inconsistency, primacy goes to s. 19B which effectuates the primary object. It is settled law that Courts should favour an interpretation that promotes the general purpose of an Act rather than one that does not.Counsel for the respondents adopted the arguments which found favour with the High Court and pressed two points. The scheme of the Act, according to the learned Judges, was to see that no one held in excess of the permissible area and since by the gift to the son or wife the latter had only lands within permissible limits, there was no frustration of the policy of the law This reasoning is repugnant to the basic scheme because the surplus pool will be adversely affected if gifts and other transfers which will skim off surplus were to be allowed. Indeed, the flaw in the High Courts argument is that if it were allowed to prevail, there will be no surplus land at all, every large holder being free to screen his surplus in the names of his with and kin or servants or reliable friends, by going through alienatory exercises. A legislation which has provided for ignoring decrees diminishing surplus lands and has otherwise prevented the escape of excess area by voluntary transfers, cannot conceivably be intended to permit inherited excesses.11. The second argument which appealed to the High Court is a little curious, and somewhat difficult to follow . Section 19-B directs the owner who, by inheritance, comes to own an excess area, to make a declaration of his lands within a prescribed time. This does rot mean that the time lag is statutorily given for executing gifts and transfers to def eat the law itself. Such a conclusion would be obviously absurd. What is intended is to give some time to the, heir to ascertain the assets he has inherited, make the choice of his reserved area which he likes to keep and make the necessary declaration. A processual facility cannot be converted into an opportunity to pervert and to thwart the substantive object of the law. After all, courts, faced with special case situations, have creatively to interpret legislation. The courts are finishers, refiners and polishers of legislation which comes to them in a state requiring varying degrees of further. processing, said Donaldson J., in Corocraft Ltd. v. Pan American Airways Inc.([1968] 3 W.L.R. 714, 732) and indeed it is no secret that courts constantly give their own shape to enactments.We feel that when economic legislation in the implementation of Part lV of the Constitution strikes new ground and takes liberties with old jurisprudence, there looms an interpretation problem of some dimensions which Indian jurists will have to tackle. The genre of agrarian reform laws, with special constitutional status, as it were, warrants interpretative skills which will stifle evasive attempts, specially by way of gifts and bequests and suspect transfers. Here ss. 10-A, 19-A and 19B, inter alia, strike at these tactics.12.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The thrust of s. 1 9-B is that even if the source of the excess area is inheritance, bequest of gift, the capacity to own is conditioned by the permissible limit. Section 10-A does not militate against this mandate of s. 19-B. Indeed, s. 19-B had to be enacted because the High Court took the view that area which became surplus subsequent to April 15, 1953 was not hit by the ceiling set and land acquired by an heir by inheritance is saved from utilisation by the State. Section 10-(a) is wide in its terms and encompasses all surplus area, howsoever obtained. Even s. 10A(b) strikes not discordant note. All that it says and means is that lands acquired by an heir by inheritance are saved in so far as dispositions of such lands are concerned. T he drafting of the saving clause is cumbersome but the sense is and, having regard to the conspectus, can only be that although in the hands of the propositus, it is surplus land, if among the heirs it is not, then their transfers will not be affected by the interdict of s. 10-A(a) the sins of the father shall not set the teeth of the children on edge. If the heirs are otherwise small holders, the fact that their father was a large owner will not deprive the former of their heritage , if it is less than the permissiblesee no conflict between s. 10-A and 19B. Assuming some inconsistency, primacy goes to s. 19B which effectuates the primary object. It is settled law that Courts should favour an interpretation that promotes the general purpose of an Act rather than one that does not.Counsel for the respondents adopted the arguments which found favour with the High Court and pressed two points. The scheme of the Act, according to the learned Judges, was to see that no one held in excess of the permissible area and since by the gift to the son or wife the latter had only lands within permissible limits, there was no frustration of the policy of the law This reasoning is repugnant to the basic scheme because the surplus pool will be adversely affected if gifts and other transfers which will skim off surplus were to be allowed. Indeed, the flaw in the High Courts argument is that if it were allowed to prevail, there will be no surplus land at all, every large holder being free to screen his surplus in the names of his with and kin or servants or reliable friends, by going through alienatory exercises. A legislation which has provided for ignoring decrees diminishing surplus lands and has otherwise prevented the escape of excess area by voluntary transfers, cannot conceivably be intended to permit inheritedsecond argument which appealed to the High Court is a little curious, and somewhat difficult to follow . Section 19-B directs the owner who, by inheritance, comes to own an excess area, to make a declaration of his lands within a prescribed time. This does rot mean that the time lag is statutorily given for executing gifts and transfers to def eat the law itself. Such a conclusion would be obviously absurd. What is intended is to give some time to the, heir to ascertain the assets he has inherited, make the choice of his reserved area which he likes to keep and make the necessary declaration. A processual facility cannot be converted into an opportunity to pervert and to thwart the substantive object of the law. After all, courts, faced with special case situations, have creatively to interpretfeel that when economic legislation in the implementation of Part lV of the Constitution strikes new ground and takes liberties with old jurisprudence, there looms an interpretation problem of some dimensions which Indian jurists will have to tackle. The genre of agrarian reform laws, with special constitutional status, as it were, warrants interpretative skills which will stifle evasive attempts, specially by way of gifts and bequests and suspect transfers. Here ss. 10-A, 19-A and 19B, inter alia, strike at these tactics.