STATE OF PUNJAB NOW HARYANA Vs. AMAR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1974-1-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on January 21,1974

STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
VERSUS
AMAR SINGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

HARDEVINDER SINGH VS. PARAMJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
COMPETENT AUTHORITY ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS VS. RIAZ JAN [LAWS(J&K)-1998-5-48] [REFERRED]
HIS HOLINESS SRI-IA-SRI KAWIVASI MUTHUKUMARASWAMI THAMBIRAN SWAMIGAL, HEAD OF SRI KASI MUTT VS. MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, SRI KUMARAGURUPARAM SWAMIGAL ARTS COLLEGE [LAWS(MAD)-1989-10-33] [REFERRED]
SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA VS. M.P. STATE MINOR FOREST PRODUCE [LAWS(MPH)-2020-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(DR)-2003-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHD SAJJAD ALI KHAN VS. ASSISTANT SURVEY COMMISSIONER WAQF BOARD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-105] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR JANGONDA PATIL VS. DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
MULKH RAJ VS. SUSHIL KUMAR [LAWS(J&K)-2004-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
NTT DOCOMO INC. VS. TATA SONS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-119] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVII (SMT.) AND OTHERS VS. INDORE CLOTH MARKET GRAH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
N RAMCHANDRAN POTTI VS. KUMARI THANKAM K K [LAWS(KER)-2004-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. PUNIT GOENKA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
SAHEED CAPT D K KHOLA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
RICHA INDUSTRIES LTD VS. ICICI BANK LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2011-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS VS. ST THOMAS CHURCH [LAWS(KER)-2001-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
MAKHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
SMADH BAWA MARU DASS VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-2004-1-83] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD K. CHAWLA VS. SHIV BHAKTI FILMS [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-145] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL VS. GIRDHARLAL NATHUBHAI DALAL [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-982] [REFERRED TO]
MOOMAN JAFFERALI ALIJI MAKNOJIYA VS. SHIA IMAMI ISMAILI MOMIN JAMAT SAMAJ [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1517] [REFERRED TO]
CHAND SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS, AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-2-166] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH HABIB SHAIKH GULAB VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1976-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
JEET SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-477] [REFERRED TO]
KKR INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED VS. AXIS BANK LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAPUR SEVA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. VAGHASAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2021-2-148] [REFERRED TO]
SINGHAL SHANKERLAL RATANLAL VS. SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-1585] [REFERRED TO]
INDER MOHAN SINGH VS. TRIPAT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-291] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-110] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA CHAWLA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FOR WOMEN VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-323] [REFERRED TO]
RAMSWAROOP VS. RAJULAL & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-12-203] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARJIT CHAKRAVARTY VS. TEJ PROPERTIES PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-100] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA SHARMA VS. RATNA DAS GHOSAL [LAWS(CAL)-1995-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1982-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA RANI VS. DHAN KISHORE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-362] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA BALA PAUL VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER C M C [LAWS(CAL)-2003-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. GUR CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1983-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
INDER KUMAR KATHURIA VS. KRISHNA KUMAR KATHURIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-439] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JANKI DEVI VS. BAL CHAND VERMA [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. PRATAP SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-515] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. HANUMAN SYNTHETICS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1984-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
METRO CASH AND CARRY INDIA PVT LTD VS. SASANKA SANFUI [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
SILIGURI INTER DISTRICT MINIBUS OWNERS, ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. BIJON KRISHNA BHOWMICK [LAWS(CAL)-1992-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
DIBLU NASKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-5-22] [REFERRED]
RAMESHWAR JAT VS. ANCHI DEVI JAT AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-2-300] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU PRATAP SINGH VS. PANNA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1985-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. CYRIAC STEPHEN [LAWS(KER)-1981-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
JANESHWAR GOYAL VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-1994-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
Ramswaroop Singh VS. Kundan [LAWS(MPH)-1992-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
Ram Sharan Yadav VS. Rabi Shankar Prasad [LAWS(PAT)-1990-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
CHARNO DEVI VS. DALI MAL [LAWS(HPH)-1994-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. ESCPTRAC FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1997-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
P GOPAL RATNAM RAMAN VS. SHYAM BABU GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-1989-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
GAYA PRASAD VS. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-1991-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN JETHYA LODHI VS. HARAKCHAND SAMARATMAL [LAWS(MPH)-1974-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1997-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAJA DUMBRA MEMORIAL TRUST [LAWS(MANIP)-2014-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA KHADI GRAMODYOG VS. RAVIKUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-413] [REFERRED TO]
BHISHAM SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1994-5-29] [REFERRED]
CHAMAN LAL JAIN VS. ARUN KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-1995-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
PRADNYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENBHAI BALDEVBHAI SHAH VS. BAIJIBEN KABHAIBHAI PATANVADIA [LAWS(GJH)-2009-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
GHASI JUG LAL VS. COMMISSIONER AMBALA DIVISION [LAWS(P&H)-1995-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1996-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV KAUR VS. MEHAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1988-7-13] [DISTINGUISHED]
KOTHURU BABU SURENDRA KUMAR VS. SPECIAL OFFICER URBAN LAND CEILING [LAWS(APH)-1999-12-109] [REFERRED TO]
MANPHUL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1995-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-1996-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-149] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. VINOD KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-1985-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
M SEEBAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2012-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
PARSADI S/O REETU URAO VS. GANESH PRASAD KEDIALABIC [LAWS(CHH)-2018-10-236] [REFERRED TO]
R JANAKIAMMAL VS. S R SOMASUNDARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-261] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU DEVI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
THE ADHOC COMMITTEE VS. K.S. MOHAMED NAZAR, [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-801] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR PANDA, S/O LATE RADHESHYAM PANDA VS. PARASHURAM, S/O HAREKRISHNA [LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-100] [REFERRED TO]
SMT MANJU DEVI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
YASHWANT RAJ VS. SADANAND SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNUBHAI ARJANJI VAGHELA VS. RAMESHCHANDRA KHODIDAS PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-177] [REFERRED TO]
BAVCHANDBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-138] [REFERRED TO]
NAYAN SUNDARI BEWA VS. SUBASH CHANDRA BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
DECEASED BAVCHANDBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-139] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIRIA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
SADULA NARSHIMHA VS. SADULA TULASI DAS [LAWS(APH)-2008-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
D. MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
ASSA SINGH VS. SHANTI PARSHAD [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-303] [REFERRED TO]
SHEORAJ VS. SUNITA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV KUMAR JAIN VS. VEERENDRA NARAIN MISHRA [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-53] [REFERRED]
ARJUN DASS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-134] [REFERRED TO]
AMBICA PARSHAD AND ORS. VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA SINGH VS. RAMBABU [LAWS(MPH)-2012-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
ABHINANDAN SPAT PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-4-256] [REFERRED]
SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY VS. SRI RAVIKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
BURUGUPALLY SHIVA RAM KRISHNA VS. CYRUS INVESTMENTS LTD [LAWS(APH)-2010-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RAJAWAT VS. DASHRATH SINGH GURJAR [LAWS(MPH)-2011-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
HARI PRASAD SAPKOTA VS. KRISHNA PRASAD [LAWS(SIK)-1984-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2020-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMALABAI VS. S SAHASWATHI BAI [LAWS(KAR)-1996-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM SARDA, SON OF LATE SHIWLAL SARDA VS. SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO A PROPRIETORIAL [LAWS(GAU)-2014-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
ABANI MOHAN DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK SHARAFF UDDIN VS. ABDUL KARIM [LAWS(KAR)-2011-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1991-10-57] [RELIED ON]
DIEZEPHE VILLAGE VS. TSITHRONGSE VILLAGE [LAWS(GAU)-2002-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
KALAIVASAGAM VS. KAMMAVAR ILAIGNAR SANGAM SIVAKASI [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-357] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ACHINA KUNDU VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-101] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD BANGALORE VS. KANTHA CHANDRA [LAWS(KAR)-1987-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD VS. PRAMILA SANFUI [LAWS(CAL)-2012-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM CO VS. TARUN KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY [LAWS(GAU)-1993-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD VS. OCEAN MARINE SERVICES CO LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2004-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
S P MUTHUSAMY VS. V THAYAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-188] [REFERRED TO]
Petromarine Products LTD VS. Ocean Marine Services Co Ltd [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-85] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SAMPURAN SINGH:PARDAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1975-9-48] [RELIED ON]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.) These two appeals by the State of Haryana challenged the High Court's approach to an interpretation of two crucial provisions of a land reforms law, namely, Sections 10-A and 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (X of 1953) 1953 (for short called "the Act"). Counsel for the appellants complains that if the view upheld by the High Court of subordinating Sections 10-A to 18 were not upset by this Court, large landholders may extricate their surplus lands in excess of the ceiling set, through legal loopholes, such as have been practised in the present case. If make-believe deals and collusive proceedings, he argues, may maneouvre through the legal net cast by sec.10-A of the Act interdicting alienations and orders which diminish the surplus pool intended for re-settlement by the State of ejected tenants, the agrarian reform measure would be reduced to a paper tiger or sicio-economic eyewash. Certainly, land reforms are no basic to the national reconstruction of the new order envisaged by the Constitution that the issue raised in this case deserves our anxious attention. We have to bear in mind the activist, though inarticulate, major premise of statutory construction that the rule of law must run close to the rule of life and the court must read into an enactment, language permitting, that meaning which promotes the benignent intent of the legislation in preference to the one which perverts the scheme of the statute on imputed legislative presumptions and assumed social values valid in a prior era. An aware court, informed of this adaptation in the rules of forensic interpretation, hesitates to nullify the plain object of a land reforms law unless compelled by its language, and the crux of this case is just that accent when double possibilities in the chemistry of construction crop up.
(2.) A brief survey of the relevant facts leading up to the legal controversy seeking resolution in these appeals will help forcus forensic attention on the provisions of the Act which bear upon the issue. A lady by name Lachhman had considerable agricultural property, far in excess of the relatively liberal ceiling set by the Act which came into force on April 15, 1953.She had a daughter Shanti Devi and son-in-law Amar Singh, respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1755 of 1967, whose brother Indraj is the respondent in the connected Appeal No. 1756 of 1967. Annexure 'B' to the writ petitions is an order dated May 11, 1962,passed under the Act and the Rules by the Collector, (Surplus Area) Sirsa. It is this order which has been successfully attacked in the writ petitions and is the subject-matter of the present appeals. The facts stated therein have not been reversed in the judgment of the High Court and we have to proceed on the assumption that those statements are correct. We are concerned with three khasras Nos. 177, 265 and 343,in all over 131 acres of land. At the commencement of the Act, khasra No. 177 was under Mst. Lachhman's self-cultivation but there were two tenants under her, Chandu and Sri Chand, on the other two plots. Together, these three plots constitute a large slice out of her surplus area and are now claimed by the respondents Amar Singh and Indraj, as their own under a purchase ordered by the Assistant Collector who is the competent authority under Section 18 of the Act (Annexure 'A' to the writ petitions). Appellant's counsel urges that the history of the derivation of title of these claimants needs to be sceptically studied, the relationship of the parties being that of mother and daughter, son-in-law and brother, and the heavy impact being slicing off a good chunk from the surplus area, otherwise available for re-settlement of evicted tenants.
(3.) At the outset it must be mentioned that the two tenants, Chandu and Sri Chand, who were on the land on the determinative date (April 15, 1953) presumably showed no interest in claiming rights granted to tenants under the Act, which were subject, of course, to their possessing lands less than the 'permissible area'. We have no information in this case what the total extent of lands in the possession of these two tenants was and whether they had chosen to keep other lands in preference to the ones under Mst. Lachman We need not speculate on how or why they left the suit plots but may note that they were on the holding on the key date in 1953 and if later they did not keep their possession (abandoned or surrendered) the tenancy terminated and on the facts of this case the lands came into the actual possession of the land-holder, Mst. Lachhman, no other legal inference being possible than that the leases were extinguished and the lands reverted to the landlady on general principles of law. In short, we have to proceed on the assumption that one plot, namely, Khasra No. 177, had always been in the self-cultivation of the landlady and that the two tenanted plots, namely, Khasra Nos. 265 and 343, came into the khas possession of the landlady to the crucial date. Apprehending the statutory peril to these lands which were admittedly outside her "reserved area", Mst. Lachman went through the exercise of making a gift of the three lands to her daughter, Smt. Shanti (vide mutation No. 445 decided on December 24, 1953 and referred to in Annexure 'B'). Subsequently, it is seen that Amar Singh, husband of Shanti and Indraj, brother of Amar Singh, purported to apply for purchase of the land-holder's right in these three plots under Section 18 of the Act making Lachhman and Shanti co-respondents and alleging that they were tenants qualified for the statutory benefit. The Assistant Collector before whom the application was made for purchase under Section 18 has said in Annexure 'A' to both the writ petitions that these two ladies "are said to be big landowners but ..... had not got this land reserved for their own purpose." Curiously enough, in both the purchase petitions the parties avoided even an enquiry by the Assistant Collector as is evident from the following statement from Annexure 'A': "Before the proceedings could state the parties have come to terms and they have actually put in court a compromise deed which they have backed up by their statements." May be, because these dubious moves if exposed to the examination of an officer might prove a fiasco, the close relations who figured as petitioner and respondents lulled the Assistant Collector into mechanically acting on the compromise without enquiring into any of the eligibility factors before a purchase could be ordered.;


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