# 603. INDER SINGH & ANR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1967] 3 S.C.R. 603
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/603-inder-singh-anr-v-state-of-punjab-ors-4090
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
603.
INDER SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
April, 10, 1967
[K. SUBBA R.Ao, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH,
R.
S.
BACHAWAT,
J.M. SHELAT
AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu 13 lff 1955)
s. 32-FF-Limit of holding by Hindu undivided family, if defeats right
of its member-If infringes Art. 19 and protected by Art. 31-A.
Constitution of India, Arts. 19 and
31-A-Validity of s. 32-FF of
Pepsu Tenancy and ARricultura/ Lands Act
While ascertaining the surplus land under the Pepsu Tenancy
and
Agricultural Lands Act, the excess over 30 acres owned by the appellants,
a Hindu 11Ddivided family was declared surplus. In ascertaining the
surplus, the authorities ignored the transfer of land by the Karla of the
family to "1ll oulllider by a registered deed. The appellants unsuccessfuily filed writ petition. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that s. 32-KK deprives a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family
of his rights of property in that it takes away the rights of the descendants
of the land-owner to claim
for themselves the
permissible area and
vest them in the head of the family alone so that there is not only an
infrinAOment of the right to hold property under Art.
19(1)
(f) but
also discrimination in favour of the head of the family infringing thereby
Art. 14 and that the section cannot be said to be legislation whose object
is agrarian refonn and, therefore, is not protected by Art. 31-A.
IjELD : The appeal must fail.
In Priram Singh v. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 S.C.R. 536] this Court
upheld the validity of s. 32-FF and held that that section was prptected
by Art. 31-A against any challenge under Art. 19. If a transfer or a
disposition of land. can validly be ignored under s. 32-FF for the purpose
of ascertaining smplus land and acquisition of such surplus land by the
State and that section is protected by Art. 31-A, it is difficult to say why
s. 32-KK which, 09uates a Hindu undivided family
with an individual
landowner for the limited purpose of the Act without affecting the other
rights of its members is not equally protected by that Article. The object
of enacting s. 32-KK was to prevent the landowner and his descendants
by reason of their constituting a Hindu undivided family from each of
them claiming in his own right the permissible area from the joint holding of the family and thus retain for themselves in the aggregate area
larger than 30 standard acres and preventing thereby distribution of surplus area.
!608 F-Hl
The contention that the section is not one relating to agrarian reform
is hardly sustainable in view of the objects of the Act in general and of
s. 32-KK u, particular. Similarly. the contention that the section has the
affect of defeating the rights of a member of a Hindu undivided family
from the family proryerty also cannot be sustained because his rights in the
permissil>le area retained by the landowner and his right to compensation
in respect of the surplu. area are not touched by the section. Nor is it
possible to say that the section results in the transfer of rights of the descendants of a landowner in th~ permissible or surplus area in favour of
<Uch landowner. The section does not effect any change in the rights of
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
f!967] 3 S.C.R.
the descendants as members of a Hindu undivided family or the relationship of the family inter se except to the extent of depriving th~ descendants
of their right to claim the ceiling area for each .of them.
[609 B-BJ
The decision of Ranjit Singh v. The State of Puniab ([1965] I S.C.R.
82) points out that the fixing of ceiling on lands and provisions refatiog
to it would form part of and constitute agrarian reform and, therefore,
such provisions would have the protection of Art. 31-A. [607 HJ

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
603.
INDER SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
April, 10, 1967
[K. SUBBA R.Ao, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH,
R.
S.
BACHAWAT,
J.M. SHELAT
AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu 13 lff 1955)
s. 32-FF-Limit of holding by Hindu undivided family, if defeats right
of its member-If infringes Art. 19 and protected by Art. 31-A.
Constitution of India, Arts. 19 and
31-A-Validity of s. 32-FF of
Pepsu Tenancy and ARricultura/ Lands Act
While ascertaining the surplus land under the Pepsu Tenancy
and
Agricultural Lands Act, the excess over 30 acres owned by the appellants,
a Hindu 11Ddivided family was declared surplus. In ascertaining the
surplus, the authorities ignored the transfer of land by the Karla of the
family to "1ll oulllider by a registered deed. The appellants unsuccessfuily filed writ petition. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that s. 32-KK deprives a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family
of his rights of property in that it takes away the rights of the descendants
of the land-owner to claim
for themselves the
permissible area and
vest them in the head of the family alone so that there is not only an
infrinAOment of the right to hold property under Art.
19(1)
(f) but
also discrimination in favour of the head of the family infringing thereby
Art. 14 and that the section cannot be said to be legislation whose object
is agrarian refonn and, therefore, is not protected by Art. 31-A.
IjELD : The appeal must fail.
In Priram Singh v. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 S.C.R. 536] this Court
upheld the validity of s. 32-FF and held that that section was prptected
by Art. 31-A against any challenge under Art. 19. If a transfer or a
disposition of land. can validly be ignored under s. 32-FF for the purpose
of ascertaining smplus land and acquisition of such surplus land by the
State and that section is protected by Art. 31-A, it is difficult to say why
s. 32-KK which, 09uates a Hindu undivided family
with an individual
landowner for the limited purpose of the Act without affecting the other
rights of its members is not equally protected by that Article. The object
of enacting s. 32-KK was to prevent the landowner and his descendants
by reason of their constituting a Hindu undivided family from each of
them claiming in his own right the permissible area from the joint holding of the family and thus retain for themselves in the aggregate area
larger than 30 standard acres and preventing thereby distribution of surplus area.
!608 F-Hl
The contention that the section is not one relating to agrarian reform
is hardly sustainable in view of the objects of the Act in general and of
s. 32-KK u, particular. Similarly. the contention that the section has the
affect of defeating the rights of a member of a Hindu undivided family
from the family proryerty also cannot be sustained because his rights in the
permissil>le area retained by the landowner and his right to compensation
in respect of the surplu. area are not touched by the section. Nor is it
possible to say that the section results in the transfer of rights of the descendants of a landowner in th~ permissible or surplus area in favour of
<Uch landowner. The section does not effect any change in the rights of
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
f!967] 3 S.C.R.
the descendants as members of a Hindu undivided family or the relationship of the family inter se except to the extent of depriving th~ descendants
of their right to claim the ceiling area for each .of them.
[609 B-BJ
The decision of Ranjit Singh v. The State of Puniab ([1965] I S.C.R.
82) points out that the fixing of ceiling on lands and provisions refatiog
to it would form part of and constitute agrarian reform and, therefore,
such provisions would have the protection of Art. 31-A. [607 HJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 92 of
!966.
Appeal from the order dated May 30, 1963 of the Punjab
High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 148 of 196:3.
R. V. S. Mani and M. L. Agarwal, for the appellants.
Dipak Dutt Chaudhuri and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
S. K. Mehta, and K. L. Mehta, for the interveners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J.
The appellants are members of a Hindu undivided
family of which the firs~ appellant is the Karta. Prior to August
21, 19 5 6, the family
owned 64. 3 5 standard acres. of land in
village Kurali, District Patiala.
The land stood in the revenue
records in the name of the first appellant. On December 23,
1957, the first appellant transferred 26 standard acres to one
Babu Singh by a registered deed. According to them, they had
planted an orchard in 10 acres of land. Their contention was
that the said 26 standard acres and the said 10 standard acres
could not be taken into account while ascertaining surplus land
under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, XIII of
1955.
Both these claims were rejected by the authorities.
By
his order dated January 20, 1961, respondent No. 3 declared
· 34.35 standard acres out of the said 64.35 stand~rd acres as
surplus land.
The appeal filed by the appellants against
the
said order was rejected.
They then filed a revision application
before respondent No. 1.
While that was pending they filed a
writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of that
writ petition, the Punjab Legislature passed the Amendment Act,
XVI of 1962 insert.mg s. 32-KK in the principal Act.
The
learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, held ( 1) that
the finding that the appellants had not planted the said orchard
within the statutory period was one of fact and· could not be
challenged in the writ petition and (2) that the said transfer of
26 standard acres was hit by s. 32-FF and therefore was rightly
ignored while ascertaining the surplus land.
The main contention urged before the High Court, however, was that each of the
three appellants who constituted the said family was entitled to
retain 30 standard acres, that as the total holding was only 64.35
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
INDER SINGH v. PUNJAB (She/at, J.)
605
standard acres, there was no surplus land liable to be acquired
under the Act and, therefore, the order declaring 34.35 siandard
acres as surplus land was illegal. The High Court following its
earlier decision in Bhagat v. State of Punjab(')
diSmissed the
writ petition. A Letters Patent Appeal against that judgment was
dismissed in limine. The present appeal by certificate is directed
against the dismissal of the said writ petition.
Mr. Mani's contentions were : ( 1) that under Hindu Law
every coparcener in a Hindu undivided family acquires right in
the property of such coparcenery on birth and is entitled to a right
of joint possession and enjoyment of its entire property, that s. 32KK deprives such a coparcener of his rights of property in that
that it talces away the rights of the descendants of the landowner
to claim for themselves the permissible area and vest them in the
head of the family alone so that there is not only an infringement
of the right to hold property under Art. 19 (I)( f) but also discrimination in favour of the head of ihe family infringing thereby
Art. 14; (2) that ihe effect of s. 32-KK is that where an undivided
family is possessed of land, insteap of each of the descendants
getting a ceiling area of 30 standard acres, tlie head of the family
alone gets 30 standard acres and therefore the section is violative
of Art. 31; ( 3) that the section, being applicable only to Hindu
undivided families infringes Art.
15(1) inasmuch as it discriminates by reason only of religion such families as against other
undivided families in Punjab amongst communities other than
Hindus and ( 4) that the section cannot be said to be legislation
whose object is agrarian reform and, therefore, is not protected
by Art. 31-A.
Section 32-KK, the validity of which is impeached in this
appeal, reads as follows :-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act
or in any other law for the time being in force :-
(a) where, immediately before the commencement
of this Act, a landowner and his descendants constitute a Hindu undivided family, the land owned by such
family shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to
be the land of that landowner and no descendant shall,
as member of such family, be entitled to claim that in
respect of his share of such land he is a la11.downer in
his own right".
The section first lays down a fiction and then
its result.
The
fiction is that where a landowner and his descendants form a
Hindu undivided family, the land owned by such a family shall
be deemed to be the land of that landowner. The fiction so en-
(!) J.L.R. (1963) 16 (lJ Punjab 500.
'606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 3 S.C.R
.acted is limited only for the purposes of the Act. The result of
.the fiction again for the purposes of the Act is that no descendant
shall, as a member of such family, be entitled to claim that in
Iespect of his share of such. land he is a landowner in his own
right. There is no doubt that the section has a direct adverse
.effect on the rights of the descendants of a landowner. It treats
such a family as one unit equating the landowner and,his des-
.cendants with
an individual landowner depriving
by
such
equation the descendant of the right to hold
a ceiling
area
for himself.
Prima facie, such a provision would infringe Art.
19.(l){f) and Art. 31 and would be hit by Art. 13. Article
31-A, however, provides that notwithstanding anything contained
in Art. 13, no law providing for the acquisition by the State of any
·estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall be deemed to be void on tl:je ground
that it is mconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the
rights conferred by Arts. 14, 19 or 31. If, therefore, s. 32-KK
falls within th.e scope of Art. 31-A, it is obviously protected
thereunder and the validity of the section is placed beyond any
•Challenge on the ground of its infringing any of the rights under
Arts. 14, 19 or 31.
In K. K. Kochuni v. The State of Madras('), this Court laid
.down that Art. 31-A properly construed envisages agrarian reform
and provides for the acquisition, extingufshment or modification of
proprietary and various other kinds of subordinate rights in a
·tenure called the 'estate' solely for that purpose and must be
limited to it. The Court held that the Act impugned there did not
.contemplate any agrarian reform or seek to regulate the rights
inter se between the landlords and tenants or modify or extinguish any of the rights appertaining to janmam right leavipg all the
·characteristics intact and, therefore, did not c<ime within the purview of Art. 31-A. In Ranjit Singh v. The State of Punjab('),
this Court considered the scope of that decision and held that the
word 'estate' in Art . .31-A should be given a liberal mel!ning and
that the changes proposed by the Punjab Consolidatipn Acts
passed since 1948 and onwards were included in the general
scheme of planning of rural areas and the productive utilisation of
vacant and waste lands, that if agrarian reforms were to succeed,
mere distribution of land to the landless was not enough, that
there should be a proper planning of rural economy and conditions and that a scheme which makes villages self-sufficient cannot but be regarded as part of larger reforms which consolidation
of holdings, fixing of ceilings on lands, distribution of surplus
lands and utilising of vacant and waste lands contemplate. It is
not necessary to refer to other decided cases as this decis)on clearly points out that the fixing of ceiling on lands and provisions
(1) [196J] 3 S.C.R. 887,
(2) [1965] l S.C.R. 82.
B
c
D
E
t '
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
INDER SINGH v. PUNJAB (She/at, J.)
607
relating to it would fonn part of and constitute agrarian refonn
and, therefore, such provisions would have the protection
of Art. 31-A.
A brief outline of the provisions of the Act will show the
objects and the policy the legislature had in mind in passing the
Act and while amending it from time to time. The Act declares
that it was passed to amend and consolidate law relating to
tenancy and agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures
of land reforms.
Section 3 defines "permissible limit" as meaning 30 standard acres of land. Section 5 entitles every landowner
owning land exceeding the pennissible limit to select for personal
cultivation from the land held by him any parcel or parcels of
land not exceeding in aggregate .the permissible area.
Chapter
III provides for the rights of tenants and section 7 therein lays
down that no tenancy shall be tenninated except in accordance
with the provisions of the Act or except on any of the grounds
therein set out.
Section 7-A lays down additional grounds for
tennination of tenancy in cases such as where the land comprising
the tenancy has been reserved by the landowner for his personal
cultivation or where the landowner owns 30 standard acres or
less of land and the land falls within the permissible limit. Section
9 provides the maximum amount of rent payable by a tenant.
Chapter IV deals with acquisition or proprietary rights by a tenant
on such tenant paying compensation determined in accordance
with the principles set out in section 26. Chapter IV-A, which
was added by Act 15 of 1956, deals with ceiling on lands and
acquisition and disposal of surplus land.
Section 32-A provides
that no person shall be entitled to own or hold as landowner or
tenant land exceeding the pennissible limit. Section 32-B obliges
a person owning or. holding as landowner or tenant land which
exCeeds the pennissible limit to furnish to the Collector a return
giving particulars of all his land and stating therein his sel.ection
of land not exceeding the permissible limit which he desires to
retain and of lands in respect of which he claims exemption from
the ceiling. Section 32-D directs the Collector fo prepare a draft
statement on the basis of the infonnation given in the said returns
showing the total area of land owned or held 6y such person
and the land selected by him by way of pennissible limit the
exemption claimed by him and the surplus area.
Section 32-E
provides that in the case of surplus area of a landowner or a
tenant which is not included within the permissible limit such
area shall on the date on which possession thereof is
taken
by the State Government, be deemed to have been acquired by
the State Gove'l!lllent for a public purpose. Section 32-F authorises the Collector to direct the landowner or the tenant in possession of the surplus area to deliver possession thereof within the
prescribed time.
Section 3 2-FF provides that no transfer
or
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] 3 S.C.R.
other disposition of land made after August 21, 1956 shall affect
the right of the State Government to the surplus area to which it
would be entitled to but for such transfer or disposition. Section
32-G lays down principles on which compensation in respect of
surplus area is .to be determined. Section 23-J deals wit!). disposal
of such surplus area. Section 32-KK already recited above was
inserted in the Act by Punjab Act XVI of 1962.
It is clear from these provisions that the objects of 'the Act
are: (a) to secure the rights of tenants, (b}
to provide for
acquisition of proprietary rights in the land to the tenant, ( c) to
provide for permissible limit of 30 standard acres, (d) to acquire
surplus areas and distribute them amongst certain classes of persons including landless persons, and ( e) to provide for compensation at prescribed rates payable by tenants and by Government
on its acquiring surplus land. The principle laid down by the
Act is that no person, whether a landowner or tenant, should hold
land more than the permissible area so that the surplus land can
be distributed amongst the more needy sections of society. In
following this principle the Act lays down two corollaries, namely, (1) not to recognise any transfer or disposition made by a
landowner after a certain date as otherwise the scheme of distribution of surplus land would be frustrated, and (ii) to equate an
individual landowner and a Hindu undivided family consisting
of a landowner and his descendants so that both the units are
entitled to hold only the permissible area of 30 standard acres. In
our view, it cannot be gainsaid that section 32-KK deals with an
estate within the meaning of Art. 31-A and is concerned with
agrarian reform.
The decision in Kochuni's
case(')
cannot,
therefore, avail the appellants.
In Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab(2 ), this Court upheld the validity of s .. 32-FF and held that that section was protected by Art. 31-A against any challenge under Art. 19. If a
transfer or a disposition of land can validly be ignored under
s. 32FF for the purpose of ascertaining surplus land aad acquisition of such surplus land by the State and that section is protected by Art. 31-A, it is difficult to say whys. 32-KK which, as
aforesaid, equates a Hindu undivided family with an individual
landowner for .the limited purpose of the Act without aff.ecting the
other rights of its members is not equally protected by that Article.
The object of enacting s. 32-KK was to prevent the landowner
and his descendants by reason of their constituting a Hindu undivided family from each of them claiming in his own right the
permissible area from the joint holding of the family and thus
retain for themselves in the aggregate area larger than 30 standard
acres and preventing thereby distribution of surplus area. As to
(\) {1960) 3 S.C.R. 887.
(2) [1967J 2 S.C.R. 536.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B·
c
D
E
F
G
e
INDER SINGH v. PUNJAB (:She/at, J.)
609
the pros ·and cons of such· a provision much can be said on either
side. The appellants could have perhaps contended that such a
provision amounw! to an unreasonable restriction.
But such a
contention is debarred by Art. 31-A and a challenge to the validity
of that Article is no longer possible in view of the recent decisioP
in I. C. Go/ak Nath v. The State of Punjab(').
The contention that the section is not one relating to agrarian
refom1 is hardly sustainable in view of the above-mentioned
objects of the Act in general and of s. 32-KK in particular.
Similarly, the contention that the section has the affect of defeating the rights of a member of a Hindu undivided family from the
family r.roperty also cannot be sustained because his rights in the
permissible area retained by !he landowner and his right to compensation in respect of the surplus area are not touched by the
section.
Nor is it possible to say that the section results in the
transfer of rights of the descendants of a landowner in the permissible or surplus area. in favour of such landowner. The section
does not effect any change in the rights of the descendants as
members of a Hindu undivided family or the relationship of the
family inter se except to the extent of depriving the descendants
of their right to claim the ceiling area for each of them. The contention as to the validity of s. 32-KK, therefore, must fail.
The next contention was .that the section infringes Art. 15 inasmuch as by limiting it only to Hindu undivided families it discriminates against descendants forming such families on the ground
of religion only. It was argued that the customary law in Punjab
recognises joint and undivided families amongst non-Hindu persons also and since .the section affects only the Hindu undivided
families, it violates Art. 15. In support of this contention passages
from Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law, 14th Ed. pp. 35 to 36
were relied on to show that the institution of undivided family
exists amongst certain classes of Muslims in certain districts of
Punjab. Support was also sought from the decisions in Banarsi
Das v. Wealth Tax Officer(") and Mammad Kevi v. Wealth Tax
Officer('). The former was concerned with the question whether
a Hindu undivided family is embraced within the term 'intlividuals'
in Entry 56 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
for purposes of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The latter decision
does not touch the question under Art. 15.
Neither of the two
decisions, therefore, can assist On the other hand, in the case of
Bhagat v.State of Punjab(') the High Court of Punjab has held
that section 32-KK does not create any discrimination on the
ground of religion. In the .present case, it is not possible to give
(l) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762.
(2) [1965] 56 I.T.R. 224.
(3) [1966] 6) I.T.R. 737.
(4) l.L.R. [1963] 16 (!} Punj. 500.
L7Sup.CI/67-9
t;
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 3 S.C.R.
any concluding answer to the contention raised by Mr.
Mani
firstly because such a point was not raised in the writ petition and
secondly because ,the appellants have not placed before us sufficient data to enable us to go into the question, We, therefore,
refrain from examining that contention.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.