Case: State Of Haryana And Anr Vs. Jiwan Singh

the permissible area would be 100 ordinary acres. On remand the Collector upheld his own previous order and the appeal taken by the respondent from this order was dismissed by the Commissioner. The respondent filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who also upheld the order of the Collector and dismissed the petition. The respondent thereafter filed a writ petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court which was allowed. The learned Judge who heard the writ petition held following a Full Bench decision of the same High Court, Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 Punj 423 that it was "not legitimate for the authority to treat as surplus area anything more than 5.80 standard acres of the petitioners land". The Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the decision of the learned single Judge by the State of Haryana and the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa was dismissed. The correctness of the High Courts decision is challenged before us in this appeal by special leave.3. The case turns on the true meaning of proviso (ii) (a) to Section 2 (3) Counsel for the appellants submits that this provision means that the permissible area in the case of displaced persons who were allotted land in excess of 50 standard acres can be determined either in terms of standard acres or in terms of ordinary acres, as the authority concerned chooses. Counsel contends that the words "as the case may be" refer to the discretion of the authority in this matter. We do not find it possible to accept this contention. There is no specific provision in the Act giving a discretion to the Collector or any other authority under the Act. to determine the permissible area for a displaced person either in standard acres or in ordinary acres. On a plain reading proviso (ii) (a) seems to indicate that where the land allotted to a displaced person was in standard acres and its area exceeded 50 standard acres, the permissible area would be 50 standard acres. and where the land was allotted not in standard acres the permissible area would be 100 ordinary acres. The nature of the original allotment - whether it was in standard acres or in ordinary acres -seems to be the determining factor. The Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1966 Punj 423) (supra), on which the judgment under appeal relies, reads proviso (ii) (a) to mean:"For a displaced person who has been allotted land in excess of 50 standard acres or in excess of 100 ordinary acres the permissible area shall be 50 standard acres or 100 ordinary acres, as the case may be."We agree that this is the correct meaning to be given to this provision, it is only construed this way that the words "as the case may be" acquire a significance, otherwise they would be mere surplusage. Clauses (b) and (c) of proviso (ii) lend assurance to this construction. Clause (b) deals with the case of a displaced person who has been allotted land in excess of thirty standard acres but less than fifty standard acres and provides that the permissible are in his case shall be equal to his allotted area. Clause (c) fixes the permissible area for a displaced person who has been allotted land less than thirty standard acres providing that it shall be thirty standard acres including any other land or part thereof, if any, that he owns in addition. Clauses (b) and (c) both deal with cases where the original allotment was in standard acres, and there is nothing in either of them sanctioning the conversion of the permissible area in standard acres into ordinary acres, though perhaps any other land which a displaced person whose case is covered by clause (c) might own in addition to the 30 standard acres allotted to him may be in ordinary acres requiring conversion of such land into standard acres to determine the permissible area in standard acres in his case as provided in clause (c). But this does not mean that the permissible area in cases covered by clauses (b) and (c) can also be fixed in ordinary acres. Proviso (ii) to Sec. 2 (3) appears to group displaced persons into two categories, those who were allotted land in standard acres and those who were allotted land in ordinary acres. Clause (a) deals with both these categories and limits the permissible area of those who were allotted land in standard acres at 50 standars acres and those who were allotted land in ordinary acers at 100 ordinary acres; clauses (b) and (c) deal only with those who were allotted land in standard acres. Those whose allotment was in ordinary acres, their permissible area is fixed at 100 such acres, but those who were allotted land in standard acres, in their case the permissible area varies as provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) though the measure in each case would be in standard acres. This appears to be the scheme. In defining "Permissible area" Sec. 2(3) of the Act provides differently for land owners and tenants covered by the substantive part of the definition, and displaced persons mentioned in proviso (ii), and also makes a distinction between displaced persons inter se as provided in the different clauses of the proviso. In the course of argument questions were raised about the logical basis for such differentiation, but the policy of the Act being clear we have to interpret the provision as we find it; if there is any anomaly in the policy itself, it is for the legislature to remove that defect. In this case the land allotted to the respondent being admittedly 55.80 standard acres, the permissible area for him would be 50 standard acres under clause (a) and, that being so, the High Court was right in holding that it was not legitimate for the authority to treat as surplus area anything more than 5.80 standard acres.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]3. The case turns on the true meaning of proviso (ii) (a) to Section 2 (3) Counsel for the appellants submits that this provision means that the permissible area in the case of displaced persons who were allotted land in excess of 50 standard acres can be determined either in terms of standard acres or in terms of ordinary acres, as the authority concerned chooses. Counsel contends that the words "as the case may be" refer to the discretion of the authority in this matter. We do not find it possible to accept this contention. There is no specific provision in the Act giving a discretion to the Collector or any other authority under the Act. to determine the permissible area for a displaced person either in standard acres or in ordinary acres. On a plain reading proviso (ii) (a) seems to indicate that where the land allotted to a displaced person was in standard acres and its area exceeded 50 standard acres, the permissible area would be 50 standard acres. and where the land was allotted not in standard acres the permissible area would be 100 ordinary acres. The nature of the original allotmentwhether it was in standard acres or in ordinary acresseems to be the determining factor. The Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1966 Punj 423) (supra), on which the judgment under appeal relies, reads proviso (ii) (a) to mean:"For a displaced person who has been allotted land in excess of 50 standard acres or in excess of 100 ordinary acres the permissible area shall be 50 standard acres or 100 ordinary acres, as the case may be."We agree that this is the correct meaning to be given to this provision, it is only construed this way that the words "as the case may be" acquire a significance, otherwise they would be mere surplusage. Clauses (b) and (c) of proviso (ii) lend assurance to this construction. Clause (b) deals with the case of a displaced person who has been allotted land in excess of thirty standard acres but less than fifty standard acres and provides that the permissible are in his case shall be equal to his allotted area. Clause (c) fixes the permissible area for a displaced person who has been allotted land less than thirty standard acres providing that it shall be thirty standard acres including any other land or part thereof, if any, that he owns in addition. Clauses (b) and (c) both deal with cases where the original allotment was in standard acres, and there is nothing in either of them sanctioning the conversion of the permissible area in standard acres into ordinary acres, though perhaps any other land which a displaced person whose case is covered by clause (c) might own in addition to the 30 standard acres allotted to him may be in ordinary acres requiring conversion of such land into standard acres to determine the permissible area in standard acres in his case as provided in clause (c). But this does not mean that the permissible area in cases covered by clauses (b) and (c) can also be fixed in ordinary acres. Proviso (ii) to Sec. 2 (3) appears to group displaced persons into two categories, those who were allotted land in standard acres and those who were allotted land in ordinary acres. Clause (a) deals with both these categories and limits the permissible area of those who were allotted land in standard acres at 50 standars acres and those who were allotted land in ordinary acers at 100 ordinary acres; clauses (b) and (c) deal only with those who were allotted land in standard acres. Those whose allotment was in ordinary acres, their permissible area is fixed at 100 such acres, but those who were allotted land in standard acres, in their case the permissible area varies as provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) though the measure in each case would be in standard acres. This appears to be the scheme. In defining "Permissible area" Sec. 2(3) of the Act provides differently for land owners and tenants covered by the substantive part of the definition, and displaced persons mentioned in proviso (ii), and also makes a distinction between displaced persons inter se as provided in the different clauses of the proviso. In the course of argument questions were raised about the logical basis for such differentiation, but the policy of the Act being clear we have to interpret the provision as we find it; if there is any anomaly in the policy itself, it is for the legislature to remove that defect. In this case the land allotted to the respondent being admittedly 55.80 standard acres, the permissible area for him would be 50 standard acres under clause (a) and, that being so, the High Court was right in holding that it was not legitimate for the authority to treat as surplus area anything more than 5.80 standard acres.