caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Kirpal Singh vs Kamla Devi on 28 January, 2020Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.356 OF 2020
(arising out of SLP (C) No.23296 of 2010)
KIRPAL SINGH & ORS. …APPELLANTS
Vs.
KAMLA DEVI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1.This appeal has been filed by legal heirs of the
subsequent purchasers challenging the judgment of
Division Bench dated 21.04.2010 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in LPA No.55 of 2010 by which
the appeal filed by the legal heirs of land owner
has been allowed setting aside the judgement of
learned Single Judge by which he directed the
prescribed authority to include the area sold to
Signature Not Verified
the appellants within the permissible area of the
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2020.01.28
14:16:51 IST
Reason:
land holder.
1
2.Brief facts of the case giving rise to this
appeal are: –
(i) One Jaipal Singh, land holder, was owner
of the land measuring 221.72 standard acres
in village Kheri, Shishgarh on 15.04.1953,
when Punjab Security of land Tenures Act,
1953(hereinafter referred to as 1953 Act) was
enforced. The 1953 Act defined permissible
area, standard acre and surplus area.
Permissible area under the 1953 Act was
defined as 30 standard acres. Land owner who
owned land in excess of permissible area was
entitled to intimate his selection in the
prescribed form and manner to the Patwari of
the State. The Collector of the area passed
an order dated 28.07.1960 determining 191.72
standard area of land as surplus in the hand
of Shri Jaipal Singh. An appeal was filed by
Jaipal Singh to the Commissioner, Ambala
Division which was dismissed on 14.11.1960.
The Revision Petition before the Financial
2
Commissioner, Punjab which was also dismissed
on 01.05.1961.
(ii) CWP No.639 of 1961 filed by the Jaipal
Singh was allowed by the High Court vide
judgment dated 12.03.1962 and authorities
were directed to redecide the surplus area in
accordance with the law laid down by the
judgment of Punjab High Court reported in
1962 PLR 22, Jagan Nath and others versus
State of Punjab and others. The proceedings
before the Collector in pursuance of the
judgment of Punjab High Court dated
12.03.1962 remained pending. In the meantime,
State of Haryana was created and State
legislature passed an Act namely, Haryana
Ceiling of land Act, 1972(hereinafter
referred to as 1972 Act). Jaipal Singh on
18.06.1974 executed sale deeds in favour of
one Mohan Singh of an area of 125 Kanal and 8
Marla. The Collector by an order dated
12.05.1978 allowed exemption of land of
Jaipal Singh declared surplus measuring 150
3
standard acres and balance of 36.47 standard
acres was declared surplus.
(iii) Learned counsel for the plaintiff
Jaipal Singh was granted time by the
Collector to furnish list of land to be
retained by Jaipal Singh but requisite list
was not submitted and order was passed on
20.05.1978 declaring surplus. The appeal
against order dated 12.05.1978 was filed by
Jaipal Singh. The Commissioner, Ambala
division decided the appeal vide order dated
14.11.1979 and remanded the case to the
Collector with a direction that he should
permit the appellant Jaipal Singh to give the
list of Khasra to be given in surplus pool to
the Collector. Appellant was given time till
21.11.1979. Jaipal Singh gave Khasra numbers
which were sold to Mohan Singh in surplus
pool. A notice was issued to Mohan Singh to
vacate the land. An application was filed by
Mohan Singh before the prescribed authority
objecting notice given to him to vacate the
4
land. The prescribed authority rejected the
application of Mohan Singh by the Order dated
11.10.1983 observing that the Vendee had
purchased the surplus area by registered sale
deed dated 18.06.1974.
(iv) Against the order of prescribed
authority, Mohan Singh filed an appeal before
the Collector. The Collector by order dated
06.02.1984 accepted the appeal directing that
if the surplus land had to be taken the same
will be taken from the land of the owner and
if the same could not be completed from his
land, only then, the land be taken from land
in dispute i.e. land of the vendees. The
Jaipal Singh having died in between, the
widow of Jaipal Singh filed a revision before
the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The
Commissioner allowed the appeal. The
Commissioner held that the surplus area
declared by the Collector in the year 1960
vested in the State. The Commissioner held
that land owner could not be forced to
5
exclude this land from surplus area. It was
further held that prescribed authority had no
jurisdiction to challenge or modify the
orders passed by the Collector. The order of
Collector was set aside and appeal was
allowed. Revision filed by Mohan Singh before
the Financial Commissioner, Haryana was
dismissed by the order dated 18.02.1987
against which writ petition No.2979 of 1989
was filed by Mohan Singh.
(v) Mohan Singh executed a sale deed on
16.06.1989 in favour of appellant of the land
which was purchased by him from Jaipal Singh
vide sale deed dated 18.06.1974.
(vi) The writ petition was allowed by learned
Single Judge setting aside the order of
Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. The
learned Single Judge remitted the matter to
consider the case of petitioner for the grant
of benefit envisaged under Section 8(3) of
1972 Act with regard to permissible area by
land owner without touching the order of
6
declaration of surplus area. The order of the
Collector dated 06.02.1984 was restored to
the limited extent.
(vii) Against the judgement of learned Single
Judge 18.11.2009, LPA was filed by the legal
heirs of the land owner. LPA has been allowed
by the Division Bench by the impugned
judgment dated 21.04.2010. The appellant
aggrieved by said judgment has filed this
appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Narender Hooda, senior
Advocate for the appellants, Shri Pradeep Kant,
senior Advocate, has appeared for the contesting
respondents. We have also heard learned Counsel
for the State of Haryana.
4.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the predecessors-in-interest of appellants having
purchased land measuring 125 Kanal and 8 Marla on
18.06.1974, they were entitled to benefits of
Section 8(3) and 9(3) of 1972 Act, which provides
that big land owner shall first include his land
and only if the same is deficient, the land of
7
the vendee should be included in the surplus
pool. It is submitted that appellant is not
challenging the declaration of the land of
surplus in the hands of Jaipal Singh nor seeking
reduction in surplus pool.
4.1. It is submitted that Section 33(2) (ii) &
(iv) cannot be read to conclude that the
provisions of 1972 Act would not be applicable if
the proceedings had commenced under 1953 Act. The
determination of surplus area does not include
within its ambit the selection of land. The
selection of the surplus pool by the land owner
has to be made under 1972 Act and any selection
made inconsistent with the provisions of 1972 Act
is null and void.
4.2. Relying on the full Bench judgment of Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Chet Ram and another
versus Amin Lal and others, AIR 1983 PH 50, it is
submitted that sale can only be void by the State
but will always remain valid and binding between
the vendor and vendee. The big land owner had
8
cheated the predecessor in interest of appellant,
since he represented that the land sold is not
included in the surplus area nor shall be given
in the surplus pool. Land owner having sold the
land in 1974 by declaring that the land was not
either in surplus pool nor the same would be
given in surplus pool, the land owner cannot be
allowed to deprive the vendee of the land
subsequently by giving the Khasra Number of the
land sold by him in 1974 in the surplus pool.
4.3. It is submitted that Section 33 of 1972 Act
should be interpreted by applying beneficial
rules of construction to fulfil the policy of the
Act and to protect the interest of person for
whose benefit the act has been passed. It is
submitted that learned Single Judge had taken
correct view of the matter and the Division Bench
erred in allowing LPA filed by the respondent.
5. Shri Pradeep Kant, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that Section 8(3) of 1972 Act
9
cannot be pressed into service by the appellant
because Section 33(2)of 1972 Act clearly provides
that the repeal of the provisions of the
enactment mentioned in sub-Section(1), shall not
affect (i) proceeding for the determination of
the surplus area pending immediately before the
commencement of this Act,(ii) which shall be
continued and disposed of as this Act (1972 Act)
had not been passed and (iii) surplus area so
determined shall vest in and be utilised with the
State Government in accordance with provisions of
1972 Act. On the date when 1972 Act came into
force i.e. 23.12.1972, the proceedings of
determination of surplus area of the land owner
Jaipal Singh was pending under 1953 Act. Section
33(2)(ii) of 1972 Act creates a deeming fiction,
it eclipses the operation of the new Act until
proceedings for the determination of surplus area
under the 1953 Act were disposed of in accordance
with the law. Neither Section 9 nor Section 8(3)
of 1972 Act can be invoked in the present case.
10
5.1. The Division Bench has rightly set aside the
Order of Single Judge and confirmed the Order of
Financial Commissioner. The submission of the
appellant that once the new Act had come into
force, the selection of Permissible Area could
only be made under Section 9 of the new Act as
the land had vested in the State Government under
Section 12(3) upon commencement of the new Act is
misconceived. The appellants were not bonafide
purchasers, they have purchased the land from
Mohan Singh vide Sale deed dated 14.06.1989 i.e.
much after land stood vested in the State
Government and after the Orders were passed by
the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner
impugned before the learned Single Judge.
5.2. Learned counsel submits that Sale deed dated
18.06.1974 having been obtained by Mohan Singh
after the commencement of 1972 Act, the sale deed
was void and no benefit can be claimed by the
appellant on that Sale deed.
11
5.3. Learned counsel for the parties have relied
on the judgments of this Court as well as of
Punjab and Haryana High Court which shall be
referred to by considering the submissions in
detail.
6. We have considered the submissions for learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the submissions as made by learned counsel
for the parties and materials on record,
following are the main questions which arise for
consideration in this appeal: –
(i) Whether the proceedings for determination of
surplus area which was initiated in respect
of land owner Shri Jaipal Singh under 1953
Act was required to be completed in
accordance with provisions of 1953 Act or
provisions of 1972 Act also became applicable
since the proceedings initiated under 1953
Act were pending on the date of enforcement
of 1972 Act.
12
(ii) Whether determination of surplus land under
1953 Act was only confined to declaration of
surplus and selection of plots for surplus
pool shall not be covered by determination of
surplus land?
(iii) Whether the appellants and their
predecessors-in-interest were entitled to the
benefit of Section 8(3) and 9(3) of 1972 Act,
which required the land owner to first
include his own land in surplus pool and only
when land own by him does not satisfy the
surplus pool land transferred by him after
the enforcement of the 1972 Act can be
included in the surplus pool?
8. All the above questions being inter-related are
being taken together for determination.
9. The Punjab Security of Land tenure Act, 1953,
was enacted to give effect to the agrarian
reforms which were taken in independent India by
different States. Section 2 of the Act was a
definition clause defining various terms and
expressions. Section 2(3) provided that
13
Permissible Area in relation to the land owner or
tenant means 30 standard acres and where such 30
standard acres on being converted to 60 acres,
such 60 acres. Section 2(5A) defined surplus
area.
10. As noted above, the proceedings for
determination of surplus area in the hands of
Jaipal Singh were initiated and an order was
passed by the Collector on 28.07.1960 declaring
191.72 standard acres as surplus area out of
221.72 standard acres owned by Jaipal Singh. The
said order was carried in Appeal and Revision by
Jaipal Singh and ultimately was taken in the High
Court by means of CWP No.639/1961 which was
allowed by the High Court on 12.03.1962 remanding
the matter for re-determination of the surplus
area.
11. The Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act,
1972 was enacted w.e.f. 23.12.1972 on which date
the proceedings for determination of surplus in
the hands of Jaipal Singh which were initiated in
1953 were pending. What is the effect on the said
14
proceedings by the enactment of 1972 Act is a
moot question to be considered and answered in
the present case? Section 33 of 1972 Act deals
with “Repeal and Saving”. The Punjab Security of
land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Tenancy Act
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 which were
operating in erstwhile State of Punjab were
repealed by Section 33(1). Sub-section (2) of
Section 33 provided that repeal of the provisions
of above mentioned two acts shall not affect
certain proceedings. Section 33 of the 1972 Act,
which is relevant is as follows: –
“33. (1) The provisions of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures
Act, 1953, and the Pepsu Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955,
which are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed.
(2) The repeal of the
provisions of the enactments
mentioned in sub-section (1),
hereinafter referred to as the
said enactments, shall not affect-
(i) the applications for the
purchase of land under
section 18 of the Punjab Law
or section 22 of the Pepsu
Law, as the case may be,
15
pending immediately before
the commencement of this Act,
which shall be disposed of as
if this Act had not been
passed;
(ii) the proceedings for the
determination of the surplus
area pending immediately
before the commencement of
this Act, under the
provisions of either of the
said enactments, which shall
be continued and disposed of
as if this Act and not been
passed, and the surplus area
so determined shall vest in,
and be utilised by, the State
Government in accordance with
the provisions of this Act;
[(iii) the revisional power
of the Financial Commissioner
under Section 24 of the
Punjab law or under sub-
section (3) of section 39 of
the Pepsu law, as the case
may be, shall be exercised as
if this Act had not been
passed; and the area declared
surplus in exercise of such
revisional power shall vest
in, and be utilized by, the
State Government in
accordance with the
provisions of this Act;
(iv) the power exercisable
under section 32-BB of the
Pepsu law, as the case may
be, shall be exercised as if
this Act had not been passed;
and the area determined
surplus in exercise of such
16
power shall vest in, and be
utilized by, the State
Government in accordance with
the provisions of this Act:
Provided that the powers
of the Pepsu Land Commission
under the Pepsu law shall
vest in, and be exercised by,
the Collector of the district
concerned.]
(3) Save as provided in sub-
section (2), no authority shall
pass an order in any proceedings
whether instituted before or after
the commencement of this Act which
is inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act.”
12. Section 33(2)(ii) thus clearly provides that
repeal of 1953 Act shall not affect the
proceedings for determination of surplus areas
pending immediately before the commencement of
1972 Act under the provisions of 1953 Act which
shall be continued and disposed of as if this Act
had not been passed.
13. The legislative intent as reflected in
Section 33 makes it clear that the proceedings
for determination of surplus area which was
pending on 23.12.1972 was to be continued and
17
disposed of as if 1972 Act had not been passed.
Thus, in continuation of the disposal of pending
proceedings, 1972 Act was not to be taken into
consideration in any manner.
14. The above interpretation of Section 33 is no
longer res integra and has been finally settled
by this Court in Jiwas Das (DEAD) through LRS.
versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana
and others, 1998 (8) SCC 740. In the above case
also, proceedings for determination of surplus
area were initiated against the land holder on
27.07.1959 which proceedings came up to the High
Court where High Court passed an order on
15.12.1961 remitting the matter for fresh
determination. The proceedings were pending and
proceedings were taken on 11.06.1975 in
consequence of direction of the High Court which
proceedings were challenged and the matter came
to this Court.
18
15. In the above context, the provisions of Section
33(2) came to be interpreted by this Court. In
paragraphs 4 and 5, following was laid down: –
“4. It may be mentioned that in the
meantime the Haryana Land Holdings
Act has come into force. Section
33(2)(i) of the said Act provides
that proceedings for determination of
the surplus area pending immediately
before the commencement of the said
Act meaning thereby the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953,
shall be continued and disposed of as
if Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1972 had not been passed. In
view of the aforesaid Section 33(2)
(i) if the proceeding which had been
initiated on 27-7-1959 and was
pending when the Haryana Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into
force, that proceeding has to be
continued in accordance with the old
Act.
5. On behalf of the appellant it
was urged that once the order dated
19-10-1959 declaring surplus land was
quashed the proceeding came to an end
and nothing was pending which can be
continued. It is difficult to accept
this contention. The order of the
High Court dated 15-12-1961 which
quashed the aforesaid order also
directed the department concerned to
determine the question of surplus
land according to the law laid down
in the case of Jagan Nath v. State of
Punjab.”
19
16. To the same effect is another judgment of
this Court in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 101, Bhagwati
Devi versus State of Haryana and others. Thus,
proceedings for determination of surplus land
which were initiated under 1953 Act were thus
have to be continued and disposed of in
accordance with 1953 Act. Learned counsel for the
appellant to support his submissions that Section
8(3) and 9(3) of 1972 Act has to be applied while
considering the selection of land by land holder
in the surplus pool contends that expression
‘determination of surplus land’ does not include
the selection of land by land owner to be given
in surplus pool. Before we proceed further, few
more provisions of 1972 Act need to be noted.
17. Section 3 of 1972 Act is a definition
clause. Section 3(l) provided that Permissible
Area means the extent of land specified in
Section 4 as Permissible Area. The Permissible
Area as defined in Section 4 of 1972 Act was
reduced as compared to Permissible Area under
1953 Act. Section 8 and 9 occurs in Chapter 2 of
20
1972 Act under the heading “Ceiling on land and
acquisition and disposal of surplus Area”.
Section 8 contains the heading “Certain transfers
(or dispositions) not to affect surplus area.”
Section 8(3) on which reliance has been placed by
learned counsel for the appellant provides for: –
“8(3). If any person transfers [or
disposes of] any land after the
appointed day in contravention of the
provisions of sub-section (1), the
land so transferred [disposed of]
shall be deemed to be owned or held by
that person in calculating the
permissible area. The land exceeding
the permissible area so calculated
shall be the surplus area of the
person and in case the area left with
him after such transfer [dispose of]
is equal to the surplus area so
calculated, the entire area left with
him shall be deemed to be the surplus
area. If the area left with him is
less than the surplus area so
calculated, the entire area left with
him shall be deemed to be the surplus
area and to the extent of the
deficiency in it the land so
transferred [or disposed of] shall
also be deemed to be the surplus area
shall be made up from each of the
transferees in the proportion to the
land transferred [or disposed of] to
them.”
21
18. Further Section 9 on which reliance has been
placed contains a heading “Selection of
permissible area and persons required to furnish
declaration”. Section 9 which is relevant is as
follows: –
“9. (1) Every person, who on the Selection of
appointed day or at any time permissible
area and
thereafter holds land exceeding the
persons
permissible area, shall [within a required to
period of three months from such furnish
date as the State Government may, declaration
by notification, specify in this
behalf] or subsequent acquisition
of land, furnish to the prescribed
authority a declaration supported
by an affidavit giving the
particulars of all his land and
that of the separate unit in the
prescribed form and manner and
stating therein his selection or
the parcel or parcels of land not
exceeding in the aggregate the
permissible area which he desires
to retain:
Provided that in case of a member
of the Armed Forces of the Union,
[the last date for furnishing the
declaration shall be the 31st
October, 1976.]
Explanation 1.- Where the
person is a member of the family,
he shall include in his declaration
the particulars of land held by him
and also of land, if any, held by
other members of the family [and
the separate unit.]
22
[Explanation II.- In
calculating the extent of land
owned or held by a person, the
share of such person in the land
owned and held by an undivided
family, firm or association of
individuals, whether incorporated
or not, and the land contributed as
share capital or otherwise by him
to a co-operative society or a
company of which he may be a member
or shareholder, shall be taken into
account.]
[(2) Every person making a
selection of the permissible area
under sub-section (1), may also
select land for the separate unit.
Explanation. – An Adult son,
who owns or holds land and is
living separately from his parents,
shall file the declaration under
sub-section (1) and make the
selection of permissible area under
sub-section (2) separately.]
(3) In making the selection
such person shall include in the
first place the land which had been
transferred by him after the
appointed day in contravention of
the provisions of Section 8 and in
the second place the land mortgaged
by him without possession but shall
not include any land-
(i) which is declared
surplus;
(ii) which was under the
permissible area of a tenant;
23
under the Punjab law or the
Pepsu Law.
(4) The declaration under sub-
section (1) shall be furnished by-
(a) in the case of an adult
unmarried person, such person;
(b) in the case of a minor,
lunatic, idiot or a person
subject to like disability, the
guardian, manager or other
person in charge of such person
or of the property of such
person;
(c) in the case of a family,
the husband or in his absence,
the wife, or, in the absence of
both, the guardian of the minor
children;
(d) in the case of any other
person, any person competent to
act for such person in this
behalf.”
19. Section 9(3) provides that in making the
selection such persons shall include in the first
place the land which has been transferred by him
after the appointed date in contravention of
provisions of Section 8 and in the second-place
land mortgaged by him without possession. Thus,
24
as per strength of Section 9(3), the land owner
while selecting land within permissible area has
to include any transfer made by him after the
appointed date in contravention provisions of
Section 8. The permissible Area and selection as
occurring in Section 9 has to be read in
reference to permissible area as referred to in
Section 3(l) read with Section 4 and selection
there on. The selection of permissible area
occurring in Section 9 and requirement to include
in such selection land transferred by land owner
after the appointed date i.e.25.03.1972 is in
reference to the proceedings under 1972 Act.
20. The submissions of Appellant that while
making selection by Jaipal Singh of the
permissible area in pursuance of appellate order
dated 14.11.1979. Section 9(3) had to be applied
and land of the predecessor-in interest of the
appellants which was purchased by Mohan Singh by
Sale deed dated 18.06.1974 ought to have been
included cannot be accepted. Firstly, the order
by the appellate authority on 14.11.1979
25
remanding the matter to the Collector for
permitting the land owner to submit a list of
plot numbers to be retained by him was in
reference to proceedings of surplus area which
was initiated under 1953 Act and as per Section
33(2)(ii), the said proceedings have to be
continued and disposed of as if 1972 Act has not
been passed. When Section 33(2)(ii) provides for
proceedings of determination of surplus area
which were pending on 23.12.1972 to be continued
as if 1972 Act had not been passed, there is no
question of applying provisions of Section 8(3)
and 9(3) as contended by the appellant.
21. Now coming to the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellant that present was not a
case of determination of surplus area rather it
was selection of permissible area by the land
owner and what has to be continued and disposed
of as per Section 33(2)(ii) of 1972 Act was
determination of surplus area and present being
case of selection of permissible area Section
26
33(2)(ii) of 1972 Act was not applicable and
Section 8 and 9 of 1972 Act has to be applied.
22. What is the content and extent of expression
“determination of surplus area” under 1953 Act
needs to be looked into for considering the above
submissions? Section 2(5a) of 1953 Act defined
surplus area in following manner: –
“2. (5-a). “Surplus Area” means the
area other than the reserved area,
and, where, no area has been
reserved, the area in excess of the
permissible area selected [under
Section 5-B or the area which is
deemed to be surplus area under sub-
section (1) of Section 5-C] [and
includes the area in excess of the
permissible area selected under
Section 19-B]; but is will not
include a tenant’s permissible area:
Provided that it will include
the reserved area, or part thereof,
where such area or part has not been
brought under self-cultivation
within six months of reserving the
same or getting possession thereof
after ejecting a tenant from it,
whichever is later, or if the land-
owner admits a new tenant, within
three years of the expiry of the
said six months.]“
23. The scheme of 1953 Act as delineated by
Section 5A, 5B and 5C indicates that
27
determination of surplus area is a process
contemplating various steps in determination of
surplus area. The submission of declaration by
land owner, the selection of permissible area by
land owner, failure of owner to furnish the
declaration supported by an affidavit, direction
of the Collector that whole or part of such land
holder or tenant shall be deemed to be surplus
area or all part of an integrated process of
determination of surplus area. When the meaning
of surplus as contained in Section 2(5a)
expressly provides that “area in excess of
permissible area selected deemed to be surplus
area”, the selection is clearly indicated as part
of the surplus area. The very definition of
surplus area as contained in Section 2(5a)
negates the submission of counsel for the
appellant that selection of permissible area is
not covered in the expression determination of
surplus area.
24. We thus also reject the above submissions of
counsel for appellant that since selection of
28
permissible area by land owner was not covered in
determination of surplus area, Section 8(3) and
9(3) are applicable.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on judgment of full Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Chet Ram and another versus
Amin Lal and others (Supra) for the proposition
that transfer in contravention of provisions of
1953 Act is only void by the State but valid
between parties inter se. In the above Full Bench
judgment, the High Court had occasion to consider
transfer in contravention under Section 19A under
1953 Act. Section 19A provided: –
“
19-A.(1) Notwithstanding anything Bar on
to the contrary in any law, custom, future
acquisitio
usage, contract or agreement, from
n of land
and after the commencement of the in excess
Punjab Security of Land of
Tenures(Amendment) Ordinance, 1958, permissibl
no person, whether as land-owner or e area.
tenant, shall acquire or possess by
transfer, exchange, lease,
agreement or settlement any land,
which with or without the land
already owned or held by him, shall
in the aggregate exceed the
permissible area;
29
Provided that nothing in this
section shall apply to lands
belonging to registered co-
operative societies formed for
purposes of co-operative farming if
the land owned by an individual
member of the society does not
exceed the permissible area.
(2) Any transfer, exchange,
lease, agreement or settlement made
in contravention of the provisions
of sub-section (1) shall be null
and void.”
26. In paragraph 23, full Bench gave following
answer: –
“23. To conclude it must be held
that even though the language of
sub-section (2) of S. 19-A is
absolute; yet for the reasons of
sound interpretation it must be
given a slightly constricted
meaning in order to harmonise it
with S. 19-B of the Punjab Act. The
answer to the question posed at the
outset is that a transfer in
contravention of Section 19-A(1)
would be void only qua the State
for the purposes of the Punjab Act,
but would be valid and binding
between the parties inter se. The
view in Labh Singh’s case 1971 Cri
LJ 719(supra) in this context, is
hereby overruled, whilst that in
Godhu’s case 1979 PLJ 496(supra) is
approved and affirmed.”
27. The above full Bench judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court was on different aspect.
30
Present is not a case for any contravention of
Section 19A, hence, the above judgment does not
support the submission made by learned counsel
for the appellant in the facts of the present
case.
28. In so far as the submission of learned
counsel for the appellant that land owner has
cheated his predecessor in interest since the
land which was already declared surplus was sold
by Jaipal Singh on 18.06.1974, the above
submission on the ground of any fraud played on
the appellant was expressly not pressed by
appellant in the High Court which has been
noticed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph
7 which is to the following effect: –
“7. At the very outset, it may be
mentioned here that although the
petitioner has challenged the
impugned orders in this petition on
the various grounds mentioned
therein, but learned counsel for the
petitioner has confined his argument
only to the limited extent of legal
proposition that Mohan Singh-
Petitioner was entitled to the
benefit of Section 8(3) of the
Haryana Act.”
31
29. Limited submission pressed before the learned
Single Judge by the appellant was as to whether
Mohan Singh was entitled to the benefit of
Section 8(3) of 1972 Act. No other submissions
were neither pressed nor adverted to by the
learned Single Judge who decided in favour of the
appellant. We are thus of the view that appellant
cannot be permitted to raise above submission.
30. The appellant has purchased the land in
dispute from Mohan Singh on 16.06.1989, when the
claim of Mohan Singh stood rejected by both
Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and land
was included in the surplus pool. The appellant
cannot be permitted to raise any issue of fraud
played on Mohan Singh the predecessor-in-interest
of appellant by land owner, it was for Mohan
Singh in his life time, to establish the plea of
fraud. The appellant could not be allowed to
raise any such submission.
31. In view of the above discussions, we are of
the view that no error has been committed by
32
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in allowing the LPA of the respondents. The
Division Bench has rightly taken the view that
Single Judge went wrong by holding that
provisions of Section 8(3) of 1972 Act are
applicable in the present case and the competent
authority has to ensure that transferred area at
first instance be included in the permissible
area of the land owner. The Division Bench has
rightly set aside the direction of learned Single
Judge and restored the order of the Financial
Commissioner dated 18.02.1987.
32. In result, we do not find any merit in the
appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
………………….J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
………………….J.
( NAVIN SINHA )
New Delhi,
January 28, 2020.
33
Comments