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

1. The appellants are members of a Hindu undivided family of which the first appellant is the Karta. Prior to August 21, 1956 the family owned 64.35 standard acres of land in village Kurali, District Patiala. The land stood in the revenue records in the name of the first appellant. On December 23, 1957, the first appellant transferred 26 standard acres to one Babu Singh by a registered deed. According to them, they had planted an orchard in 10 acres of land. Their contention was that the said 26 standard acres and the said 10 standard acres could not be taken into account while ascertaining surplus land under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 13 of 1955. Both these claims were rejected by the authorities. By his order dated January 20, 1961, respondent No. 3 declared 34.35 standard acres out of the said 64.35 standard acres as surplus land. The appeal filed by the appellants against the said order was rejected. They then filed a revision application before respondent No. 1. While that was pending they filed a writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Punjab legislature passed the Amendment Act, 16 of 1962 inserting S. 32-KK in the principal Act. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, held (1) that the finding that the appellants had not planted the said orchard within the statutory period was one of fact and could not be challenged in the writ petition and (2) that the said transfer of 26 standard acres was hit by S. 32-FF and therefore was rightly ignored while ascertaining the surplus land. The main contention urged before the High Court, however, was that each of the three appellants who constituted the said family was entitled to retain 30 standard acres, that as the total holding was only 64.35 standard acres, there was no surplus land liable to be acquired under the Act and, therefore, the order declaring 34.35 standard acres as surplus land was illegal. The High Court following its earlier decision in Bhagat v. State of Punjab, ILR (l963) 1 Punj 500 = (AIR l963 Punj 319) dismissed the writ petition. A Letters Patent Appeal against that judgment was dismissed in limine. The present appeal by certificate is directed against the dismissal of the said writ petition.

Reasoning:
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.