D. Falshaw, C.J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which has been referred by Mehar Singh J. to a larger Bench in consequence of the, fact that he discovered that an earlier decision of his own on the point in issue was in conflict with a decision of Shamsher Bahadur, J. on the same point.
(2.) THE case arises out of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act XIII of 1955, the effect of which is to restrict the holding of any landowner to 30 standard Acres, the balance of his land becoming so -called surplus' area which is taken away and allotted to tenants. The relevant facts are that Bir Singh petitions owned 58 standard acres of land which he partitioned along the members of his family, his son and his twines who are also Petitioners, by means of a report mad to the Patwari on the 4th of September 1956 Bir Singh and his son constituted a joint Hindu family.
(3.) BY Punjab Act III of 1959 Section 32 -FF wt inserted in the Pepsu Act as from the 30th of October (sic). This Section reads: Save in the case of, land acquired by the State Government under any law for the time being in force or by a heir by inheritance or up to the 30th of July 1958 by a landless person or a small landowner, not being a relation as prescribed of the person making the transfer or disposition of land, for consideration up to an area which with or without the area owned or held by him does not in the aggregate exceed the permissible limit, no transfer or other disposition of land effected after the 21st of August 1956 shall affect the right of the State Government under this Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer or disposition: Provided that any person who has received any advantage tinder such transfer or disposition of land shall be bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it. A similar provision in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures; Act, X of 1953, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jagan Nath v. The State of Punjab ILR (1962) 1 P&H 811 and it was held that when a partition of a Joint Hindu family occurs no one takes any property not previously belonging to him nor does any of them pass any interest in such property to another, and hence on such a partition there Is In law no transfer or other disposition of property within the meaning of the Act. The effect of this was that Hindu Joint family arrangements similar to that in the present case were not hit by the provision in the Punjab Act corresponding to Section 32 -FF in the Pepsu Act.;