Case: Inder Singh &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

It is clear from these provisions that the objects of the Act are: (a) to secure the rights of tenants, (b) to provide for acquisition of proprietary rights in the land to the tenant, (c) to provide for permissible limit of 30 standard acres, (d) to acquire surplus areas and distribute them amongst certain classes of persons including landless persons, and (e) to provide for compensation at prescribed rates payable by tenants and by Government on its acquiring surplus land. The principle laid down by the Act is that no person whether a landowner or tenant, should hold land more than the permissible area so that the surplus land can be distributed amongst the more needy sections of Society. In following this principle the Act lays down two corollaries, namely (i) not to recognise any transfer or disposition made by a landowner after a certain date as otherwise the scheme of distribution of surplus land would be frustrated, and (ii) to equate an individual 1andowner and a Hindu undivided family consisting of a landowner and his descendants so that both the units are entitled to hold only the permissible area of 30 standard acres. In our view, it cannot be gainsaid that S. 32-KK deals with an estate within the meaning of Art. 31-A and is concerned with agrarian reform. The decision in Kochunis case, (1960) 3 SCR 887 =(AIR 1960 SC 1080 ) (supra) cannot, therefore, avail the appellants. 8. In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, Writ Petn. No. 110 of 1966, D/- 1-2-1967- (AIR 1967 SC 930 ), this Court upheld the validity of S. 32-FF and held that that section was protected by Art. 31-A against any challenge under Art. 19. If a transfer or a disposition of land can validly be ignored under S. 32-FF for the purpose of ascertaining surplus land and acquisition of such surplus land by the State and that section is protected by Art. 31-A, it is difficult to say why S. 32-KK which, as, aforesaid, equates a Hindu undivided family with an individual landowner for the limited purpose of the Act without affecting the other rights of its members is not equally protected by that Article. The object of enacting S. 32-KK was to prevent the landowner and his descendants by reason of their constituting a Hindu undivided family from each of them claiming in his own right the permissible area from the joint holding of the family and thus retain for themselves in the aggregate area larger than 30 standard acres and preventing thereby distribution of surplus area. As to the pros and cons of such a provision much can be said on either side. The appellants could have perhaps contended that such a provision amounted to an unreasonable restriction. But such a contention is debarred by Art. 31-A and a challenge to the validity of that Article is no longer possible in view of the recent decision in I. C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab Writ Petn. No. 153 of 1966, D/- 27-2-1967 -(AIR 1967 SC 1643 ). 9. The contention that the section is not one relating to agrarian reform is hardly sustainable in view of the above-mentioned objects of the Act in general and of S. 32-KK in particular.Similarly, the contention that the section has the effect of defeating the rights of a member of a Hindu undivided family from the family property also cannot be sustained because his rights in the permissible area retained by the landowner and his right to compensation in respect of the surplus area are not touched by the section. Nor is it possible to say that the section results in the transfer of rights of the descendants of a landowner in the permissible or surplus area in favour of such landowner. The section does not effect any change in the rights of the descendants as members of a Hindu undivided family or the relationship of the family inter se except to the extent of depriving the descendants of their right to claim the ceiling area for each of them. The contention as to the validity of S. 32-KK therefore, must fail. 10. The next contention was that the section infringes Art. 15 inasmuch as by limiting it only to Hindu undivided families it discriminates against descendants forming such families on the ground of religion only. It was argued that the customary law in Punjab recognises joint and undivided families amongst non-Hindu persons also and since the section affects only the Hindu undivided families, it violates Art 15. 11. In support of this contention passages from Rattigans Digest of Customary Law, 14th Edn., pp. 35 to 36 were relied on to show that the institution of undivided family exists amongst certain classes of Muslims in certain districts of Punjab. Support was also sought from the decisions in Banarsi Das v. Wealth Tax Officer, Spl. Circle, Meerut, (1965) 56 ITR 224 = (AIR 1965 SC 1387 ) and Mammad Keyi v. Wealth Tax Officer, Calicut, (1966) 60 ITR 737 =(AIR 1966 Ker 77 ) The former was concerned with the question whether a Hindu undivided family is embraced within the term individuals in Entry 56 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution for purposes of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The latter decision does not touch the question under Art. 15. Neither of the two decisions therefore, can assist. On the other hand, in the case of ILR (1963) 1 Punj 500 = (AIR 1963 Punj 319) (supra) the High Court of Punjab has held that S. 32-KK does not create any discrimination on the ground of religion. In the present case, it is not possible to give any Concluding answer to the contention raised by Mr. Mani firstly because such a point was not raised in the writ petition and secondly because the appellants have not placed before us sufficient data to enable us to go into the question. We, therefore, refrain from examining that contention. 12.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]It is clear from these provisions that the objects of the Act are: (a) to secure the rights of tenants, (b) to provide for acquisition of proprietary rights in the land to the tenant, (c) to provide for permissible limit of 30 standard acres, (d) to acquire surplus areas and distribute them amongst certain classes of persons including landless persons, and (e) to provide for compensation at prescribed rates payable by tenants and by Government on its acquiring surplus land. The principle laid down by the Act is that no person whether a landowner or tenant, should hold land more than the permissible area so that the surplus land can be distributed amongst the more needy sections of Society. In following this principle the Act lays down two corollaries, namely (i) not to recognise any transfer or disposition made by a landowner after a certain date as otherwise the scheme of distribution of surplus land would be frustrated, and (ii) to equate an individual 1andowner and a Hindu undivided family consisting of a landowner and his descendants so that both the units are entitled to hold only the permissible area of 30 standard acres. In our view, it cannot be gainsaid that S. 32-KK deals with an estate within the meaning of Art. 31-A and is concerned with agrarian reform. The decision in Kochunis case, (1960) 3 SCR 887   =(AIR 1960 SC 1080  ) (supra) cannot, therefore, avail the appellantsIf a transfer or a disposition of land can validly be ignored under S. 32-FF for the purpose of ascertaining surplus land and acquisition of such surplus land by the State and that section is protected by Art. 31-A, it is difficult to say why S. 32-KK which, as, aforesaid, equates a Hindu undivided family with an individual landowner for the limited purpose of the Act without affecting the other rights of its members is not equally protected by that Article. The object of enacting S. 32-KK was to prevent the landowner and his descendants by reason of their constituting a Hindu undivided family from each of them claiming in his own right the permissible area from the joint holding of the family and thus retain for themselves in the aggregate area larger than 30 standard acres and preventing thereby distribution of surplus area. As to the pros and cons of such a provision much can be said on either side. The appellants could have perhaps contended that such a provision amounted to an unreasonable restrictionOn the other hand, in the case of ILR (1963) 1 Punj 500 = (AIR 1963 Punj 319) (supra) the High Court of Punjab has held that S. 32-KK does not create any discrimination on the ground of religion. In the present case, it is not possible to give any Concluding answer to the contention raised by Mr. Mani firstly because such a point was not raised in the writ petition and secondly because the appellants have not placed before us sufficient data to enable us to go into the question. We, therefore, refrain from examining that contention.