TMI Blog1974 (1) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-settlement by the State of ejected tenants, the agrarian reform measure would be reduced to a paper tiger or socioeconomic eyewash. Certainly, land reforms are so 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 benignant 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. A breif survey of the relevent facts leading up to the legal controversy seeking resolution in these appeals will help focus forensic attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, khasras Nos. 265 and 343, came into the khas possession of the landlady subsequent to the crucial date. Apprehending the statutory peril to these lands which were admittedly outside her reserved areas Mst. Lachhman 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 landholders right in these three plots under s. 18 of the Act making Lachhman and Shanti co-respondents and alleging that they were tenants qual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the act and the legislative mutations by amendatory effort to make the law effective, and to unmake judicial decisions which weakened the working of it will help understand the current biochemistry of the Act. Any interpretation unaware of the living aims ideology and legal anatomy of an Act will miss its soul substance--a flaw which we feel, must be avoided particularly in socio-Economic legislation with a dynamic will and mission. Now to the legislation itself. A brief introduction is found in the reference order of the Full Bench (Shamsher Bahadur, J.) in Mam Raj v. State of Punjab : The Act passed on 15th of April, 1953, was not the first legislation on the subject and the contours of many of the concepts had already taken shape in the two earlier enactments on the subject, namely, the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act, 1950 (Act No. 22 of 1950) and Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Amendment Act, 1951 (President's Act 5 of 1951). The Act, which at once consolidated and amended the existing law on the subject, was designed to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters . As is clear from the preamble, the primary object was the protect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desired to keep and this parcel or parcels of land was meaning fully designated as reserved area . Of course, if he failed to intimate his selection within six months from the commencement of the Act to the Patwari concerned, the prescribed authority was empowered to select the parcel or parcels of land which such person was entitled to retain for himself. The legislature found that many land-owners had failed to make the reservation in time and so by the Amending Act 46 of 1957 a further period of six months from the commencement of the later Act was given for selecting the land/lands they meant to keep, and further again gave the prescribed authority power to select the parcel or parcels of land on behalf of the defaulting landholders. The intendment of the statute was that the reserved area war, to be self cultivated and so land-owners were competent to eject tenants from the reserved area, although, generally speaking, evictions had been barred. As a matter of fact, landholders were directed to start self cultivation within six months from the date of reservation or the date on which they got possession by eviction. Small holders, i.e., persons who owned less than the permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of defeating the objectives with which the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953, was enacted and amended from time to time. It was intended that the surplus area of every land-owner recorded as such in the revenue records should be made utilisable for the settlement of ejected tenants. Certain specific decisions and their impact on the legislative operation were mentioned, and then the statement of objects proceeded : In order to evade the provisions of s. 10-A of the Parent Act interested persons, being relations, have obtained decrees of courts for diminishing the surplus area. Clause (4) of the Bill seeks to provide that such decrees should be ignored in computing the surplus area. We. mention this only to emphasize that the legislature has been anxious to, guard against erosion of the surplus pool by alienatory maneouvres or even decrees and orders obtained through judicial or quasi-judicial processes. The Act defines permissible area in relation to landowner or a tenant as 30 standard acres and where such 30 standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed 60 acres, such 60 acres. (s. 2(3), The landlord who has a vaster extent may utilise t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to by way of disposession unless the displaced tenant is accommodation surplus are a in accordance with the provisions of s. 10-A or......' Of course, if the tenant is a close relation of the landlord within the prescribed category this protection does not enure to him as per the second proviso to s-9-A. It is note worthy that a son-in law is not one such relative. It is obvious that a large number of tenants would be ejected by small landholders and large landholders from their reserved areas under s. 9 of the Act. Naturally, legislative concern for their rehabilitation found expression in s. 10-A(a) which runs thus 10-A(a) The State Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, shall be competent to Utilize any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected, or to be ejected, under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of s. 9. The success of the scheme, therefore, depends on the extent of the surplus pool. For one thing, large landholders, when deprived of their excess area, as well as small landholders, in order to be viable, have to secure actual possession of what they are eligible to keep, this being the legislative justice shown to landowners by the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was passed in 1955, both these provisions were given retrospective effect as from the decisive date, namely, April 15, 1953. The deep concern of the legislature is clear from all this. Right from the beginning one of the primary objects of the statute had been to enable tenants to purchase the Landlord's right and become full owners and in this behalf was enacted S. 18 which has figured very much in the controversy in these appeals, It states : 18(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a landowner other than a small land-owner (i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years, or (ii)........ (iii)....... shall be entitled to purchase from the landowner the land so held by him but not included in the reserved area of the landowner, in the case of a tenant falling within clause (i) or clause (ii) at any time, and in the case of a tenant falling within clause (iii)within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act: Provided that.... Provided further that.. . . The further sub-sections of s. 18 deal with the process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incipal discussion in the judgment under appeal has turned on the claim to primacy of s. 18 as against s. 10-A and so it is as well that we state right now what stand we propose to take in resolving apparent conflicts in the provisions of a socially-oriented, projectimplementing legislation. Every such statute has a soul and an integrated personality-minor deformities may mar this unity, especially when piecemeal amendments and unskilled drafting occur. The basic judicial approach must be to discover this soul of the law and strive to harmonise the many limbs to subserve the pervasive spirit and advance the social project of the enactment. Seeming confrontations between provisions must be resolved into a cooperative coexistence. This interpretative activism persuades us in this case to reconcile what the High Court has conceived to be a conflict between s. 10-A and s. 18. Here, there are 3 khasra nos., two of which (nos. 265 and 343) were outstanding on tenancy with Chandu and Sri Chand at the relevant date, April 15, 1953 (which admittedly, is the date with reference to which Permissible area , reserved area and surplus area have to be fixed). The third item, khasra no. 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, clear that the land comprised in Khasras Nos. 265 and 343 (subject matter of the tenancy in favour of Amar Singh) could not fall within the definition of surplus area in the hands of the landowner and Section 10-A of the Act could not apply to it. We are afraid there is a fallacy in this reasoning. It is true that a mere change in tenancy by transfer of the lease as such, as distinguished from a landlord inducting a new tenant on land the prior lease over which has been terminated and possession restored to the lanlord, may not perhaps offend s.10-A although situations may arise even in such cases leading to a different conclusion. We need not investigate this possibility further. In the present case, the exclusion of the two khasras from the surplus area depends on their being part of the permissible area of Chandu and Sri Chand. To salvage the lease in his favour, Amar Singh, the new tenant, must prima facie show that this alienation does not violate s.10-A(b) which prohibits all transfers and other dispositions which diminish the surplus area of the landowner concerned. He has, therefore, to make out (a) that the demised lands do not form part of the landlord's sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concept in the abstract but, as s.2(3) mentions, is 'in relation to a landowner or a tenant'. In relation to Chandu and Sri Chand no claim to permissible area or consequential rights has been set up and Amar Singh is not a transferee from them but a de novo tenant. It follows that the two khasras should be computed as part of the surplus area of Mst. Lacchman and s.10-A(b) operates to invalidate the alleged lease to Amar Singh as its clear impact is to diminish the surplus area of the landowner. He had, therefore, no right as a tenant to purchase under s. 18. The more serious question raised turns on the effect of the purchase orders, Annexure A, on s.10-A(c). The High Court reasoned-and this was repeated before us as counsel's argument-that while it is true that for determining the surplus area of a person 'any judgment, decree or order of a court or other authority' obtained after the commencement of the Act and having the effect of diminishing his surplus area 'shall be ignored', this mandate does not apply to orders of authorities under the Act, like the Assistant Collector exercising powers under s. 18. The learned judge quotes the object of s. 10- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely nullified and obliterated . In this connection he further observed : In every case, order under section 18 of the Act, would be passed after the Act came into force. If an order under section 18 has to be ignored by the operation of clause (c) of section 10-A, every order under section 18, must be ignored while declaring the permissible area of the Landowner. There is no discretion in the authorities to apply the provisions of clause (c) of s. 10-A or not to apply them. The provision is mandatory, if, therefore, clause (c) of section 10-A could be utilised for abrogating the effect of an order under section 18 of the Act, the whole scheme of the Act of distribution of land to the tenants and for conferring a right on a tenant to purchase the land within the limits of permissible area, would be flouted. Having given serious consideration to the pros and cons we are not satisfied that this argument is valid; on the contrary, if upheld it may stultify s. 10-A and the scheme of the statute altogether. Obviously, if every order of purchase sanctioned under s. 18 can successfully diminish surplus area of a landowner, a spate of such, orders would be procured by previous arra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minish the area of such person which could have been declared as his surplus area . Ex hypothesi surplus area excludes a tenant's permissible area. Therefore, even if that land falls outside the reserved area of the landowner, if it is within the tenant's permissible area, its purchase by the tenant cannot diminish the landowner's surplus area. (emphasis supplied) Another substantial category, who may buy under s. 18 without reducing the surplus area, is the re-settled tenants. When the State acting under s. 10-A(c) accommodates an ejected tenant the utilization of the surplus land pro tanto is fulfilled. Such a rehabilitated tenant of the landlord, after the six years' term, can qualify to buy under s. 18. Such a purchase only fulfils the second object of the Statute of making the tiller the owner and does not in any way diminish the-surplus area of the landlord. For, with the re-settlement of an ejected tenant that land, for all practical purposes, is no longer available for the only purpose for which the surplus pool is meant, viz., re-settlement of ejected tenants. Thus, it is clear that s. 18 is not rendered otiose by the view that orders thereunder which di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usively got up to dwindle the surplus area of the landowner. The Collector in Annexure 'B' finds: A ......and it is crystal clear that Amar Singh and Indraj had not been in continuous cultivating possession of this land for full six years, the other copy of Khasra Girdawari put in this case and which is to be found at page 27 of the file, shows the possession over this land of Indraj and Amar Singh only from the year 1957-58, and so their possession over it for full six years is not complete as yet. He has also stated that he was convinced that the landowner has conspired with her son-in-law Amar Singh and his brother Indraj to retain this area in contravention of the law. A third pregnant fact is that the proceedings under s. 18 were prima facie collusive, and to burke an enquiry into the eligibility of the alleged tenants to purchase under s. 18 an expedient was resorted to. Before the proceedings could start says Annexure 'A', the parties have come to terms and they have actually put in court a compromise deed which they have backed up by their statements. Thus, no finding on the basic facts of entitlement to purchase have been recorded by the authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period is not complete at the time of application. The reason why ,even before the proceedings began parties presented a compromise ,and avoided an enquiry is not far to seek. In short, the State could and did make out the incompetence of the respondents to purchase under s. 18 and Annexure 'A', being also stricken by the vice of s. 10-A (b) and (c). Shri Dhingra urged that s.18(1)(iii) did contemplate purchase rights for persons who had no possession when the Act came into force and their purchases must necessarily diminish the surplus area. This seeming attractiveness vanishes when we notice that s.18(1) (ii) ,and (iii) provide for two classes of hard cases where unjust evictions prior to the Act coming into force had deprived them of their rights. For all practical purposes the Act clothes them with such rights as they would have enjoyed had they not suffered unjust evictions. That is why specific provision was made in s. 18 for them. The exception proves the rule. The paramountcy of s. 10-A cannot be subverted by illegitimate use of the processes under s. 18. Purchases under s. 18 being involuntary, s. 10-A(b) would not be hit, as it deals only with voluntary transfers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit brought for that purpose. The mere fact that the contract is embodied in a decree does not alter the incidents of the contract. it may be right to conclude that any authority, like the Collector here, enjoined to apply s. 10-A(b) and (c) may decline to act on a compromise which has ripened into an order if the agreement between the parties disposes of property in violation of a statutory mandate. He can and must lift the veil and look the agreement of the parties in the face. The vice of contravention of s. 10-A(b) is writ large in Annexure 'A.' A few decisions of this Court bearing on the efficiency of consent decrees were cited at the bar and they are exhaustively dealt with in Chari v. Seshadri([1973] 1 S.C.C. 761). The other rulings of this Court-all rendered under the Rent Control Law-are Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat [1969] 2 S.C.R. 432. Kaushalya Devi v. K.L. Bansal([1969] 2 S.C.R. 1048), and Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal([1970] 3 S.C.C. 181). The core principle or ratio that is revealed in these cases is that in cases ,where a statute, embodies a public policy and consequentially prescribes the presence of some conditions for grant of reliefs,parties can not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as being in contravention of s. 13 of the Delhi statute. The High Court held 'that the decree was a nullity, as the order was passed solely on the basis of the compromise without indicating that any of the statutory grounds mentioned in s. 13 existed. Following the decision in Bahadur singh v. Muni Subrat(supra), this Court upheld the order of the High Court. In Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal(2), the landlord's grounds for eviction were denied by the tenant but they reported compromise with prayer for a decree for eviction. This Court ruled From the facts mentioned earlier, it is seen that at no stage, the Court was called upon to apply its mind to the question whether the alleged 'subletting is true or not. Order made by it does not show that it was satisfied that the subletting complained of has taken place, nor is there any other material on record to show that it was so satisfied. it is clear from the record that the court had proceeded solely on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. That being so there can be hardly any doubt that the court was not competent to pass the impugned decree. Hence the decree under execution must be held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 10-A(a) of the Act. The legislature, charged with the constitutional mandate of art. 38 and art. 39 has passed the Act and amended it from time to time in furtherance of the major purpose of distributive justice. The judicial wing of the State, viewing the law in the same wavelength, interprets and applies it. But the Executive instrumentality of the State has an activist role to play if the arm of the law were not to hang limp and social justice is not to be a cynical phrase. Good laws and correct interpretations are not enough. Quick, conscientious and public minded enforcement, of the provisions is the responsibility of Government and its officers. In the present case the Assistant Collector' order, Annexure 'A', has fortified an attempted fraud on the statute. It was stated at the Bar that a score of years notwithstanding, the processes of fixing reserved areas and surplus areas on the strength of which alone conferment of proprietory right on tenants and re-settlement of ejected tenants could, proceed, are still lingering. If this is true Government has much to answer for and litigation a bounds where delays in executive enforcement occur. We expect that this l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluded in the 'surplus area' of the landowner, if, at the time the surplus area collector takes up the determination of the matter, that land is found to be comprised in the tenancy of persons other than the original tenants. The material facts are these: On April 15, 1953 when the Act came into force, Smt. Lachhman (hereinafter referred to as the 'landowner') owned 101 .6 standard acres, equivalent to 404.10 ordinary acres, of land in the revenue, estates of two villages, namely, Darba Kalan and Nahran Wali. Out of this holding of the landowner, we are concerned only with Field Nos. 177, 265 and 343, situate in the area of Darba Kalan. On the determinative date (April 15, 1953), Field No. 177 measuring 64 bighas and 12 biswas which is the subject matter of C. A. 1756/67, was in the personal cultivation of the landowner, while Field Nos. 265 and 343, measuring 67 bighas and 19 biswas were in the occupation of two tenants, namely, Sri Chand and Nathu. It is not clear from the record whether the landowner had made the reservation or selection of her permissible area in the prescribed manner, within time. But the learned Counsel for the parties before us are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Amar Singh and Indraj were deemed to have become owners by purchase under s. 18. He ignored his order, dated September 15, 1961 on the ground that Amar Singh and Indraj has not been in continuous occupation of these fields as tenants for the full terms of six years and that in fact the landowner has conspired with her son-in-law, Amar Singh, and his brother, Indraj, to retain this area in contravention of the law . It was added that the said order was based on a compromise and was a collusive one . Amar Singh and Indraj filed two separate writ petitions under Art. 226 of the constitution for the grant of a writ of certiorari for bringing up and quashing the order, dated May 11, 1962, of the Surplus Area Collector and for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State not to dispossess them from the fields purchased by them under s. 18. The High Court by its common Judgment, dated October 4, 1966, answered the three questions referred to above. as under (i) The expression transfer and other disposition of land in clause (b) of section 10-A of the Panjab Security of Land Tenures Act 10 of 1953, do not include completed sales effected tinder s. 18 of the Act ; (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndowners and other landowners . A small landowner as defined in s. 2(2), means a landowner whose entire land does not exceed the permissible area . Owners other than small landowners fall in the second category. Landowner means a person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act XVII of 1887) and also includes an allottee and lessee as defined in clauses (b) and (c) respectively, of section 2 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949. Under the Explanation added to the clause, a mortgagee, in respect of the land mortgaged with possession is also to be deemed a 'landowner'. Landowner is not comprehensively defined in the Land Revenue Act, clause (2) of Sec. 3 of that Act makes it clear that landowner does not include a tenant. Thus, it is to be noted that lesses from the landowner (being other than those falling under s. 2(e) of the Land Resettlement Act, 1949) do not come within the definition of landowner- given in the Act. The fivefold object of the Act., endorsed by Subba Rao J. (as he then-was) speaking for this Court in Gurbax Singh v. State of Punjab([1967] 1,S.C. R. 926. ) is to (i) provide a permissible area o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period specified in sec. 5-A and in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The requisite form was prescribed by Punjab Government Notification No. 3223-LR-11-57/1624 published in the Gazette Extraordinary of March 22, 1958, consequently, a landowner could make the selection of his permissible area within six months of date. In Gurbax Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), this Court held that ,selection' in s. 5-B is similar to 'reservation' in s. 5 and that, in terms, s. 5-B gives the landowner another chance to make the reservation if he had not exercised his right of reservation earlier under s.5. It was clarified that reservation and selection involve the same process and indeed, to some extent, they are convertible, for, one can reserve land by selection and another select land by reservation. Thus if the right of selection is exercised under s. 5-B, by the landowner, his permissible area would become his 'reserved area'; to that extent, the two concepts would represent one and the same thing. The next provision to be noticed is in s. 9 which says inter alia that 'no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant is a te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision which says that a decision has to be given by any authority whether a permissible area has or has not been rightly reserved or selected by a landowner or tenant concerned, but when the provisions of the Act with the rules are considered, it becomes plain that while determining the surplus area with a landowner or a tenant the question of his permissible area comes to be determined so that, if there is a question in regard to the validity of reservation or selection of permissible area, it must come for consideration before the Collector when he disposes of the surplus area of a particular landowner or tenant....... (Parenthesis added). Declaration of 'surplus area' does not have the effect of expropriating the landowner of that area. The only effect of such declaration is that the Government gets a right to utilize the surplus are, if necessary, for settlement of ejected tenants. The tenants, thus settled on the surplus land become by operation of law, the tenants of the landowner. They are bound under the rules, to attorn and pay rent to the landowner. The latter's rights of ownership remain intact, who is even entitled to evict the settled tenants in cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of the commencement of this Act; Provided.. Provided further.... (2) A tenant desirous of purchasing land under subsection (1) shall make an application in writing to an Assistant Collector of First Grade having jurisdiction over the land concerned , and the Assistant Collector, after giving notice to the landowner and to all other persons interested in the land and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, shall determine (formerly the word was 'fix,) the average of the prices obtaining for similar land in the locality during 1 0 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made. 3. xxx xx xx 4(a) xxx xxx xx (b) On the purchase price or the first instalment thereof, as the case may be, being deposited, the tenant shall be deemed to have become the: owner of the land, and the Assistant Collector shall where the tenant is not already in possession, and subject to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) put him in possession thereof.. (C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cases fall under category (ii). Most of the tenant-purchasers belong to category (i) which may be further divided into these sub-categories : (a) Tenants who were on the land on April 15, 1953 and continued to be in occupation of their land for the requisite period upto the date of the application ; (b) Tenants who were inducted on the surplus area by the landowner sometime after the determinative date and who thereafter remained in continuous occupation of the land for the requisite term ; (c) Tenants who were resettled on the surplus area by the Government, and thereafter remained in continuous occupation of the land for the requisite period.Quite a number of tenants who invoke s. 18, come under sub-category (b).In the instant case, Amar Singh and Indraj are tenants of this sub-category. In Sahib Ram's case (supra) also, this Court was dealing with a case of tenants of this subcategory. Vaidialingam J. speaking for the Court, enunciated the law on the point, thus So far as we could see there is no prohibition under the Act placing any restrictions against the right of the landowner creating new tenancies after the date of the Act. In fact, the second proviso to s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommencement of this Act and having the effect of dimnishing the area of such person which could have been declared as his surplus area shall be ignored. Section 10-A with its sub-clauses (a) and (b) was added by Punjab Act XI of 1955. Punjab Act 4 of 1959 inserted the saving clause (within brackets) in clause (b) Later Punjab Act 14 of 1962, inserted clause (c) and gave retrospective effect to all the provisions of s. 10-A from April 15, 1953. The Statement of Objects and Reasons published in the Punjab Gazette Extraordinary on April 16, 1955, lists among others, the main objects of Act XI of 1955 : to prevent large scale ejectment of tenants. to introduce new concepts of surplus area and its utilization by the State Government for the resettlement of ejected tenants .... to coordinate the ejectment of tenants with their resettlement on surplus area .... to prevent sales and other dispositions of land adversely affecting the continuance of tenancies and the extent of available surplus area ; to reduce the period (from 12 to 6 years) entitling a tenant to purchase the land comprised in his tenancy and to provide for easier terms of purchase and other incidental matters. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der ss. 5-B and 5-C read with Rule 6 of the 1956. Rules, and acting under S. 10-A is distinct and separate from the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dealing with an application under s. 18. Collector has been defined by Rule 2(iii-A) of the 1956 Rules, to mean the Collector of the district or any other officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector 1st Grade empowered in this behalf by Government . (emphasis supplied) Rule 4-B provides that the Prescribed Authority for the purposes of Section 5B(12) and Section 5-C shall be (i) the Collector if the lands owned or held by the landowner or tenant are situate in one district : and (ii) the Special Collector-as defined in Rule 2(iv)-if the lands so owned or held are situated in more than one district. Section 18(2), however, confers the jurisdiction to try and determine applications for purchase made under that section specifically, on Assistant Collector of First Grade. An order of the Prescribed Authority made under the aforesaid' provisions has been made appealable under SubRule (8) of Rule 6 ;. whereas the provision in regard to appeal, review and revision against an order of the Assistant Collector Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rule that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he' is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it. As a rule, leave to appeal will not be refused to a person who might have been made ex nominee a party-see Province of Bombay V. W. 1 Automobile Association(2) Heera Singh v. Veerka(3) and Shivaraja v. Siddamma(4); Executive Officer v. Raghavan Pillai(5) In re B. an Infant (6); Govinda Menon v. Madhavan. Nair (7). Secondly, the ruling of the Financial Commissioner in Punjab ,State v. Dr. lqbal Singh (8), which is binding on all the authorities and Revenue Officers exercising jurisdiction under the Act clinches the matter. There the decision of the Special Collector declaring surplus area was reversed by the Additional Commissioner. The State, filed against that decision of the Additional Commissioner, a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. Objection was taken with regard to the competency of the State to file that petition, on two grounds : (i) that the order was appealable and the revision was incompetent and; (ii) that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompromise and collusion between the landlady and her relation-tenants, and as such, were null and void ; (d) these orders had the effect of diminishing the surplus area and as such, were orders of other authority bit by clause (c) of s. 10A; (e) Section 18 has to be construed in a manner which does not defeat the object of s. 10-A. These two sections can be reconciled only if the operation of s. 18 is confined to those purchases which do not adversely affect the extent or utilization of surplus area. In reply, Mr. S. K. Dhingra, learned Counsel for the respondents,. maintains that a lease cannot be regarded as a transfer or disposition of land within the meaning of clause (b) of s. 10-A, because according to its general scheme and object, the Act not only recognise the right of a landowner to create new tenancies on his surplus area after April 15, 1953, but further gives to such a tenant the right to purchase his tenancy under s, 18. Reliance has been placed on this Court's decision in Saheb Ram's case (supra). Laying stress on the omission of the word lease from clause (b) of s. 10-A. Counsel has .referred to the use of the word lease in addition to the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dds the Counsel-of the aggrieved person or the 'State was by way of appeal or revision as provided by the statute and since those orders were not so challenged, they had become final. The Prescribed Authority, Surplus Area-it is emphasised, while assessing the surplus area, had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal or revision over the orders of the Asstt. Collector, 1st Grade passed under s.18. Reference in this behalf has been made to ss. 24 and 25 of the Act, ss. 80 to 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and R.K. Chari v. Seshadri; ([1968] 2 S.C.R. 848) Mohanlal v. Goenka([1953] 4 S.C.R. 377 ); Dhaunkal v. Man Kauri (3) and Mam Raj v. Punjab State (supra). It will be appropriate to take contention (c), first, canvassed by Mr. Mahajan because it is the linch-pin of the entire case. The question is, whether the compromise order,, were wholly void or merely voidable. If they were of the former kind, they would be a nullity which does not from its very nature needs setting aside, and consequently, they could be treated as non-existant whenever and wherever their legality comes in question. And, the Prescribed Authority Surplus Area would be entitled to ignore such orders as non-est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ..Act for purchase of the above land, and by his order dated 15th September 1961, Shri Hardial Singh, Assistant Collector 1st Grade Sirsa District Hissar, allowed the petitioner to purchase the above land at a price of ₹ 13,590/-.. .. This averment of Amar Singh was admitted in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the State in these terms Para 2 of the petition is admitted In the written statement filed by the State--apart from a general statement that in view of the facts explained by the Collector in his order dated 11-5-62 the surplus area .... has been rightly declared it was not specifically pleaded that the purchase order dated September 15, 1961, made by the Collector under s. 18 was collusive, void or without jurisdiction on the ground that Amar Singh and Indraj had not been in occupation of these fields for the full statutory period. Nor could Amar Singh and Indraj be denied the status of 'tenants' and the rights and privileges attaching thereto, merely because they were related to the landowner, the 'son-in-law' and 'son-in-law's brother' not being among the relatives prescribed in Rule 5 of the 1956 Rules, whose cultiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding the bona fide requirement of the property by the landlord for his own occupation; and as such the decree contravened s. 10 of that Act, and was a nullity. The Bench unanimously rejected this objection of the judgement-debtor tenant. Vaidialingam J. (Dua J. concurring) laid down the law thus The true position appears to be that an order of eviction based on consent of the parties is not necessarily void if the juri-dictional fact viz., the existence of one or more of the conditions mentioned in s. 10 were shown to have existed when the Court made the order. Satisfaction of the Court, which is no doubt a pre-requisite for the order of eviction, need not be by the manifestation borne out by a judicial finding. If at some stage the Court was called upon to apply its mind to the question and there was sufficient material before it, before the parties invited it to pass an order in terms of their agreement, it is possible to postulate that the Court was satisfied. about the grounds on which the'. order of eviction was Passed . The above principle was reiterated and applied by this Court in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichchram (civil Appeal No. 2479/72 decided on 30.11.73). J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manner provided by the Act i.e. by way of appeal, review or revision. As has already been observed earlier, the State or the Department. if aggrieved or prejudiced by a decision of an authority under this Act can avail of theremedy of appeal available under the Act in any case, it can move the Financial Commissioner to set right the illegality or impropriety in revision. The Financial Commissioner it may be recalled has wide powers in revision to correct such errors committed by the inferior authorities in the exercise of their jurisdiction and there is no time limit to the exercise of this revisional power by the Financial Commissioner. Section 25 of the Act provides Except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the validity of any proceedings of order taken or made under this Act shall not be called in question in any court or before any other authority. On analysis of the section it is clear that it gives a two fold mandate. on one hand it debars the jurisdiction of courts or other authorities to question the validity of any proceeding or order taken or made under the Act and on the other it prohibits the impeachment of such orders or proceedings in a manner whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating; and that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion into the working of the system (see Maxwell 12th Edn. page 45). The second is that if there is an apparent conflict between different provisions of the same enactment, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect may be given to both (see King Emperor v. Behari Lal Sharma (1). Let us now apply the above principles to the construction of ss. 10-A and 18. It has already been noticed that s. 18 is designed to pro.mote one of the primary objects of the Act viz., of procuring ownership of land to the tiller on easy terms. It has also been seen that the self-sufficing machinery of this section is available for purchase of their tenancies to the tenants inducted before or after April 15, 1953, by the landowner on land not being a part of his permissible area, equally with tenants settled on such area by the Government. In a way, every sale made by the operation of s. 18 in favour of tenant admitted by the landowner on his surplus area, causes diminution of the surplus area or affects the utilisation thereof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or consideration are reported in Bhajan Lal v. Punjab State(1) BishanSingh v. State (2). This case decided pretation of the same words and Agricultural Lands Act, 10-A of the Punjab Act; Lakshmi Raj v. State of Haryana (3) Punjab by Mahajan j. proceeds on an interused in s. 32-FF of the Pepsu Tenancy 1953, which is in pari material with s. The above is the only reasonable interpretation of the words transfer or other disposition of land in s.10-A(b) which is consistent with the content and object of s.18, and can reconsile and: keep effective both the sections. Though the contention of Mr. Dhingra that the words transfer or other disposition in the said clause(b) do not embrace within their scope tenancies or leases 'created by the landowner-because such a right of the landowner is reeognised by the Act vide sahib Ram's case (supra)-is, not altogether without force,yet I do not think it necessary to decide that point. The lease created by Smt. Lachchman ceased to subsist as soon as the Collector made the orders of purchase under s. 18 in favour of the erstwhile tenants. The question, whether the extinct lease which preceded the purchase orders was a transfer or n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. If there still remained any doubt on this point, the. same must be deemed to have been authoritatively dispelled by the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. The State of Punjab([1966] 2 S. C. R. 511). A plain reading of the definition of 'surplus area' in s.2(5-a) which has been quoted in a foregoing part of this judgment, shows that land held by a tenant within his permissible area, cannot be included in the surplus area of the landowner. Since on the determinative date i.e. 15-4-53, Field Nos. 265 and 343, measuring 10.5 standard acres only, were held by the tenants, Sri Chand and Nathu, within their permissible area, these fields could not, in view of the mandate of s. 2(5-a), be included in the surplus area' of Smt. Lachchman. At the time, when the Surplus Area Collector took up determination of the surplus area (which as pointed out in Dhannkal's case (supra) implies incidental verification of the permissible areas of the landowner and the tenants, also) these fields were still comprised in a tenancy, though the holder of the tenancy was a different tenant. In these circumstances, the change of the tenant will not make these Fields accrete to the sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
