Case: Sukhram Singh And Another Vs. Smt. Harbheji

suit. Section 229-B provides that any person claiming to be an Asami of the whole or a part of it may sue the landlord for a declaration of his rights as Asami. Sub-section (3) of the same Section provided that the provisions are to apply mutatis mutandis to a suit by a person claiming to be sirdar (Adhivasi). Section 234-A then provides that the provisions of Section 229-B mentioned above shall apply to an Adhivasi as if he were an Asami. Schedule II to the Land Reforms Act in Item 34 appoints the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, as competent Court for the trial of suits for declaration of rights under Section 229-B. The Schedule also provides for an appeal to the Commissioner from the order and to the Board of Revenue by a second appeal.11. In the present case the Compensation Officer who passed the order on October 25, 1956 was also Assistant Collector, Ist Class, but he did not refer the case to himself after framing an issue and hence his order has been treated to have been passed by him in his capacity as a Compensation Officer.12. We will now come to the question whether Section 157 also operates retrospectively with Section 21. The latter was made retrospective expressly. The High Court in the Division Bench decision held that Section 157 was also retrospective by implication. The contention of the appellants is that Smt. Harbheji was not entitled to take the benefit of the amendment and to plead that she could let out her sir land because her husband was suffering from an infirmity and was not able to look after the cultivation. If Smt. Harbheji is entitled to plead the amended Section then under Section 21 Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh must be treated as Asamis because that is what Section 21 enacts. If the unamended Section is to be read with Section 21 then the contrary result is reached.13.Now a law is undoubtedly retrospective if the law says so expressly but it is not always necessary to say so expressly to make the law retrospective. There are occasions when a law be held to be retrospective in operation. Retrospection is not to be presumed for the presumption is the other-way but many statutes have been regarded as retrospective without a declaration. Thus it is that remedial statutes are always regarded as prospective but declaratory statutes are considered retrospective. Similarly sometimes statutes have a retrospective effect when the declared intention is clearly and unequivocally manifest from the language employed in the particular law or in the context of connected provisions. It is always a question whether the legislature has sufficiently expressed itself. To find this one must look at the general scope and purview of the Act and the remedy the legislature intends to apply in the former state of the law and then determine what the legislature intended to do. This line of investigation is, of course, only open if it is necessary. In the words of Lord Selborne in Main v. Stark, (1890) 15 AC 384 at p. 388 there might be something in the context of an Act or be collected from its language, which might give to words prima facie prospective a larger operation.More retrospectively is not to be given than what can be gathered from expressed or clearly implied intention of the legislature.14. Applying these tests to the statute we have in hand, we are clear that Section 157 (1) (a) must be read to apply retrospectively. It is clear that Section 21 (h) mentioned only one of the clauses viz., clause (e) as furnishing a ground for declaration. After the amendment of cl. (h) one or more of the clauses of Section 157 (1) are to be taken into account. Now there would be no point in making the amendment of Section 21 (h) retrospective if the other clauses were to apply prospectively for then the force of the retrospectivity of clause (h) of Section 21 is made neutral. Therefore, if the new Section 21 (h) is to be read retrospectively from the commencement of Land Reforms Act, the amendment of Section 157 (1) which was made simultaneously must also be clearly intended to operate with retrospection. The legislature intended that at any given moment of time from the commencement of the Land Reforms Act all the clauses or one or more of them and not clause (e) alone were to be taken note of.The amendment of clause (h) speaks of one or more clauses and when we read the clauses of Section 157 (1) we find them altered also. Therefore the new clauses must be read and not the old clauses. The High Court was thus right in its conclusion that the clauses of Section 157 (1) as amended also operate retrospectively. This disposes of the first point.15. The next point is about the finality of the order of October 25, 1956 passed by the Compensation Officer. We cannot refer that order to his capacity as the Assistant Collector. An act would, no doubt be referable to a capacity which would give it validity. But the law required the compensation officer to frame an issue and refer it to the competent Court. He could not decide the matter without doing so. One of the parties was before it and he ought to have asked that party to prove its case. He did nothing.It is, therefore, not wrong for the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director to treat the order as proceeding from the Compensation Officer. Further since proceedings under Section 202 of the Land Reforms Act were already pending for the decision of the identical question the Compensation Officer ought to have stayed his hands. In our opinion, the order of the Compensation Officer did not have that finality which is claimed for it. That finality attaches only to the order of the Assistant Collector on a reference of an issue from the Compensation Officer. There was thus no finality.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]7. The difference between the two Sections material for our purposes lies in the mention of all clauses of Section157, sub-section (1) after the amendment whereas before the amendment only cl. (e) of sub-section (1) of Section157 was mentioned. Section157 also was amended. Again for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to reproduce the whole of the Section. The difference here is that a lease by a woman although married was possible if her husband was suffering from insanity or idiocy or was a person incapable of cultivating by reason of blindness or other physical infirmity. Smt. Harbheji in her applications wished to take advantage of the amendments of Sections 21 and 157 on the ground that her husband was suffering from sinus and hence from physical infirmity and was incapable of cultivating the land. The difficulty arises because the Legislature while making the amendment made the amendment in cl. (h) of Section 21 retrospective from the date of the passing of the Abolition Act but in Section 157 it did not expressly state that the amendments were retrospective. The sham question that arises is whether Section157 when read with Section 27 (21?) also becomes retrospective notwithstanding that there are no express words of retrospectivity.10. The second point is concerned with the addition of Chapter IX-A which is headed Conferment of Sirdari Rights on Adhivasis. The grounds on which the ejectment of an Adhivasi could be made were contained in Section 234 of the Land Reforms Act but none of the grounds applies here. Thus if Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh were Adhivasis they could not be ejected by Smt. Harbheji but if they were only asamis then the ejectment could take place because they were only tenants from year to year. Chapter IX-A added Sections 240-A to 240-N. It provides that the Government may by a notification declare that the rights, title and interest of the land-holders in the land held by Adhivasis shall cease and vest in the State and also provides for payment of compensation to the landlord whose rights, title or interest in the land are acquired. The compensation statement is required to be published under Section 240-F and Section 240-G gives a right to any person interested to file objections. Section 240-H deals with the procedure for disposal of the objections under Section 240-G. It provides that the Compensation Officer shall frame an issue regarding it and refer it for disposal to the Court which has jurisdiction to decide a suit under Section 229-B read with Section 234-A and that thereupon all the provisions relating to the hearing and disposal of such suit shall apply to his reference as if it were a suit. Section 229-B provides that any person claiming to be an Asami of the whole or a part of it may sue the landlord for a declaration of his rights as Asami. Sub-section (3) of the same Section provided that the provisions are to apply mutatis mutandis to a suit by a person claiming to be sirdar (Adhivasi). Section 234-A then provides that the provisions of Section 229-B mentioned above shall apply to an Adhivasi as if he were an Asami. Schedule II to the Land Reforms Act in Item 34 appoints the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, as competent Court for the trial of suits for declaration of rights under Section 229-B. The Schedule also provides for an appeal to the Commissioner from the order and to the Board of Revenue by a second appeal.11. In the present case the Compensation Officer who passed the order on October 25, 1956 was also Assistant Collector, Ist Class, but he did not refer the case to himself after framing an issue and hence his order has been treated to have been passed by him in his capacity as a Compensation Officer.12.We will now come to the question whether Section 157 also operates retrospectively with Section 21.The latter was made retrospective expressly. The High Court in the Division Bench decision held that Section 157 was also retrospective by implication. The contention of the appellants is that Smt. Harbheji was not entitled to take the benefit of the amendment and to plead that she could let out her sir land because her husband was suffering from an infirmity and was not able to look after the cultivation. If Smt. Harbheji is entitled to plead the amended Section then under Section 21 Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh must be treated as Asamis because that is what Section 21 enacts. If the unamended Section is to be read with Section 21 then the contrary result is reached.13.Now a law is undoubtedly retrospective if the law says so expressly but it is not always necessary to say so expressly to make the law retrospective. There are occasions when a law be held to be retrospective in operation. Retrospection is not to be presumed for the presumption is the other-way but many statutes have been regarded as retrospective without a declaration. Thus it is that remedial statutes are always regarded as prospective but declaratory statutes are considered retrospective. Similarly sometimes statutes have a retrospective effect when the declared intention is clearly and unequivocally manifest from the language employed in the particular law or in the context of connected provisions. It is always a question whether the legislature has sufficiently expressed itself. To find this one must look at the general scope and purview of the Act and the remedy the legislature intends to apply in the former state of the law and then determine what the legislature intended to do. This line of investigation is, of course, only open if it is necessary. In the words of Lord Selborne inMain v. Stark, (1890) 15 AC 384   at p. 388there might be something in the context of an Act or be collected from its language, which might give to words prima facie prospective a larger operation.More retrospectively is not to be given than what can be gathered from expressed or clearly implied intention of thethese tests to the statute we have in hand, we are clear that Section 157 (1) (a) must be read to apply retrospectively. It is clear that Section 21 (h) mentioned only one of the clauses viz., clause (e) as furnishing a ground for declaration. After the amendment of cl. (h) one or more of the clauses of Section 157 (1) are to be taken into account. Now there would be no point in making the amendment of Section 21 (h) retrospective if the other clauses were to apply prospectively for then the force of the retrospectivity of clause (h) of Section 21 is made neutral. Therefore, if the new Section 21 (h) is to be read retrospectively from the commencement of Land Reforms Act, the amendment of Section 157 (1) which was made simultaneously must also be clearly intended to operate with retrospection. The legislature intended that at any given moment of time from the commencement of the Land Reforms Act all the clauses or one or more of them and not clause (e) alone were to be taken note of.The amendment of clause (h) speaks of one or more clauses and when we read the clauses of Section 157 (1) we find them altered also. Therefore the new clauses must be read and not the old clauses. The High Court was thus right in its conclusion that the clauses of Section 157 (1) as amended also operate retrospectively. This disposes of the firstlatter was made retrospective expressly. The High Court in the Division Bench decision held that Section 157 was also retrospective by implication. The contention of the appellants is that Smt. Harbheji was not entitled to take the benefit of the amendment and to plead that she could let out her sir land because her husband was suffering from an infirmity and was not able to look after the cultivation. If Smt. Harbheji is entitled to plead the amended Section then under Section 21 Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh must be treated as Asamis because that is what Section 21 enacts. If the unamended Section is to be read with Section 21 then the contrary result iscannot refer that order to his capacity as the Assistant Collector. An act would, no doubt be referable to a capacity which would give it validity. But the law required the compensation officer to frame an issue and refer it to the competent Court. He could not decide the matter without doing so. One of the parties was before it and he ought to have asked that party to prove its case. He did nothing.It is, therefore, not wrong for the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director to treat the order as proceeding from the Compensation Officer. Further since proceedings under Section 202 of the Land Reforms Act were already pending for the decision of the identical question the Compensation Officer ought to have stayed his hands. In our opinion, the order of the Compensation Officer did not have that finality which is claimed for it. That finality attaches only to the order of the Assistant Collector on a reference of an issue from the Compensation Officer. There was thus no finality.