TMI Blog1968 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ink it necessary to hear the.Counsel for the parties on the other questions raised in the appeal. Before examining the question of law referred to hereinbefore it is necessary to set out the material facts. The second appellant is the son of the first appellant. The appellants alongwith Charanjit Singh and Darshan, the two other sons of the first appellant were members of a joint Hindu family. That family owned agricultural lands in the village Hathoa, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The principal Act came into force on March 6, 1955. The preamble to that Act says that it is an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms. That A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Act incorporated into the Act s. 32(FF) which says: Save in the case of land acquired by the State Government under any law for the time being in force or by an heir by inheritance or up to 30th 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 21st 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 : This Section has a proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sets out the short title and commencement of that Act. That Section reads: This Act may be called the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962. (2) Section 2, section 4, section 5, section 7 and section 10 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of October 1956 and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force at once. After the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act No. III of 1959 came into force, the Collector of Sangrur started proceedings under Chapter 4A of the Act for determining the surplus lands in the hands of the appellants. In those proceedings despite the representations of the appellants, the Collector ignored the partition effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those decisions as grounds on which they differed are referred to in Bit Singh s case([1963] P.L.R. 961.). The decisions which have taken the same view as taken by the High Court in this case have ignored the significance of s. 1 (2) of the 1962 Amendment Act. They have exclusively focussed their attention on s. 32(KK) and the supposed reasons for its enactment. It is, a well settled rule of construction that no. provision in a statute should be given retrospective effect unless the legislature by express terms or by necessary implication has made it retrospective and that where a provision is made retrospective, care should be taken not to extend its retrospective effect beyond what was intended. To accept the line o.f reasoning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962, it appears to us that the legislature intended that s. 7 of that .Act which introduced into the principal Act s. 32(KK) should be deemed to. have come into force on the 30th October 1956. Evidently the draftsman when he drafted s. 7 of that Act had in his mind the Amendment Act and not the principal Act. The words this Act in s. 7 of the Amendment Act (s. 32-KK of the principal Act) in our opinion were intended to refer to the Amendment Act and not to the principal Act. It is true that ordinarily when a Section is incorporated into the principal Act by means of an amendment, reference in that Section to this Act means the principal Act. But in view of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
