NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR, AGRARIAN
LAWS(P&H)-1974-8-21
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 01,1974

NACHHATTAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR, AGRARIAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) 9.43 standard acres of land belonging to petitioner No. 1 was declared as surplus land by Collector Agrarian, Bhatinda, vide his order dated December 30, 1960. Petitioner No. 1 did not challenge this order either before the Commissioner or before the Financial Commissioner. It is, however, urged that this land has not been utilised so far and he continues to be in possession of the same. In the year 1970 the petitioners entered into a family settlement under which petitioner No. 1 gave 108 kanals and 19 marlas of land to his three sons-petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in equal shares. On June 25, 1974, Collector Agrarian, served a notice upon petitioner No. 1 calling upon him to surrender 9.43 standard acres of land. This was pursuant to Section 9 of The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 , hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners have challenged this order on the ground that they had a right to have their surplus area determined in accordance with Section 4 of the Act which allows the head of the family to retain additional area.
(2.) Notice of motion was issued to the respondents and Shri H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has appeared in response to this notice and opposes the petition.
(3.) Initially the surplus area of petitioner No. 1 had been determined under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. Under the provisions of that Act, petitioner No. 1 was entitled to retain thirty standard acres. Under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 , a different mode of determination of surplus area has been provided. " 'Permissible area' shall mean in respect of - (a) land under assured irrigation and capable of yielding at least two crops in a year (hereinafter in this Act referred to as 'the first quality land'), seven hectares; or (b) ... ... ... .... ...; or (c) barani land, 20.5 hectares; or (d) land of other classes including banjar land, an area to be determined according to the prescribed scale with reference to the intensity of irrigation, productivity and soil classification of such clauses, having regard to the respective valuation and the permissible area of the clauses of land mentioned at (a), (b) and (c) above : ... .... ... ... ." Second proviso appearing under Section 4(2) lays down that where the number of members of family exceeds five, the permissible area shall be increased by one-fifth of the permissible area for each member in excess of five, subject to the condition that additional land shall be allowed for not more than three such members. Section 5 entitles the land-holder to select his permissible area and in case he has an adult son, he is empowered to select separate permissible area in respect of such son out of the land owned or held by him. In other words, if petitioner No. 1 were allowed to select his permissible area in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, each of his sons would be entitled to retain permissible area of land. The main argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is that under Section 17 of the Act, no decree or order of any Court or authority shall be valid save to the extent to which it is consistent with the provisions of this Act; and under Section 28(2)(iii) the land-owner had a right to retain permissible area which was not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Since the Act allows selection of permissible area by the land-holder not only for himself but also for his adult sons, the new provisions regarding selection of land should hold the field. I am afraid, there is no merit in this submission. It is settled law that in interpreting a statute all of its provisions have to be read together. Furthermore, it is open to a Court to take notice of the conditions prevailing before the enactment of the statute and the mischief which the Legislature sought to remedy. Canons of interpretation are invoked when the provisions of a statute are ambiguous or incapable of being given a reasonable meaning when literally interpreted. If the words of a statute are clear they have to be given effect to regardless of external aids of construction.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.