# Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab(') and most of the points in this

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 165
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 125 of 1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ajit-singh-v-state-of-punjab-and-most-of-the-points-in-this-3977
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A
BHAGAT RAM & ORS.
l'.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
December, 2, 1966
B
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. 1., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI,
c
D
E
F.
G
H
R. S. BAC'HAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J
Ease Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)
Act (50 of 1948)-Scheme reservi11g land for income of Panchayat-lf
acquisition-If hit by second provi.w to Art, 31A (I) of the Comtitution
of India.
A scheme under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act) for consolidation of an estate was prepared
in 1959. The petitioner, who held land within the ceiling limit, challenged
it on the ground that in so far as it makes reservation of land (or the
income of the Panchayat,. it was hit by the second proviso to Art. 3 IA( l)
of 1he Constitution.
HELD (per Subba Rao C.J., Sikri and Bachawat, JJ.). The e.sentia!
difference between "acquisition by the State'' on the one hand and "modificarion or extinguishment of rights" on the other, is that in the first case,
the beneficiary is the State while in the second, the beneficiary is not the
State.
As the beneficiary in the instant case was the Panchayat which falls
within the definition of the word "State" und•.r Art, 12 of the Constitution,
the reservation in the scheme was contrary to the second proviso and must
be modified appropriately. [144 D-Hl
The repartition unde.r s, 21 of the Act would not amount to "acquisition" within the second proviso to Art. 31A, because, under ss. 23A and
24 of the Act, till possession has changed, the managen;ent and rontrol
do not vest in the Panchayat and acquisition would not be complete.
Therefore, it could not be said that the acquisition had already taken place
before the Seventeenth Amendment, which introduced the second proviso
lo Art. JIA(I), came into force, and that the scheme was not hit by that
proviso. [146 E-HJ
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 S.C.R, 143, followed.
Per Hidayatullah and Shela!, JJ : Since the land of the petitioner was
reduced to something below the ceiling fixed by law, compensation at a
rate which \vas not lower than the market value must fn paid to him. fl47
C-F]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 125 of 1966.
Petition und;r Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Hardev Singh and S. S. Khanduja, for the petitioners.
K. L. Gossain, 0. P. Malhotra and R. N. Sachthey, for the
respondents.
The Judgment of SunBA RAO c. J. and SJKRI and BACHAWAT
JJ. WAS de!iverd by SIKRI, J. The separate Judgment of HIDAYATULLAH and SHELAT, JJ. was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH.
166
SUPllBME COUJlT REPORTS
[1967] 2 S.C.R.
Sikri, J. This is a petition under art. 32 of the Constitution
ch?!lenging the scheme made in respect of the consolidation of
village Dolike Sunderpur. We have today delivered judgment in
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab(') and most of the points in this
appeal are covered by the decision in that case. Two points remain
to be dealt with iri this case.
The first question that arises is wh~ther the scheme in so far
as it makes reservations of land for income of the Panchayat 1,
hit by the second proviso to art. 3 lA. The scheme reserves lands for
phirni, paths, agricultural paths, manure pits, cremation grounds,
etc., and also reserves an area of 100 kanals 2 marlas (standard kanals) for income of the Panchayat.
W~ have already held in
Ajit Singh's(') case that acquisition for the common purposes such
as phirnis, paths, etc., is not acquisition by the State within the
second proviso to an. 31A. But this does not dispose of the question
whether the reservation of land for income of the Panchay3t is
acquisition of land by the state within the second proviso to art. 31 A.
We held in that case that there was this essential ..!ifference between "acquisition by the State" on the one hand and "modification
or extinguishment of rights" on the other that in the first case the
beneficiary is the State while in the latter case the beneficiary of
the modification or the extin

## Text

A
BHAGAT RAM & ORS.
l'.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
December, 2, 1966
B
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. 1., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI,
c
D
E
F.
G
H
R. S. BAC'HAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J
Ease Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)
Act (50 of 1948)-Scheme reservi11g land for income of Panchayat-lf
acquisition-If hit by second provi.w to Art, 31A (I) of the Comtitution
of India.
A scheme under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act) for consolidation of an estate was prepared
in 1959. The petitioner, who held land within the ceiling limit, challenged
it on the ground that in so far as it makes reservation of land (or the
income of the Panchayat,. it was hit by the second proviso to Art. 3 IA( l)
of 1he Constitution.
HELD (per Subba Rao C.J., Sikri and Bachawat, JJ.). The e.sentia!
difference between "acquisition by the State'' on the one hand and "modificarion or extinguishment of rights" on the other, is that in the first case,
the beneficiary is the State while in the second, the beneficiary is not the
State.
As the beneficiary in the instant case was the Panchayat which falls
within the definition of the word "State" und•.r Art, 12 of the Constitution,
the reservation in the scheme was contrary to the second proviso and must
be modified appropriately. [144 D-Hl
The repartition unde.r s, 21 of the Act would not amount to "acquisition" within the second proviso to Art. 31A, because, under ss. 23A and
24 of the Act, till possession has changed, the managen;ent and rontrol
do not vest in the Panchayat and acquisition would not be complete.
Therefore, it could not be said that the acquisition had already taken place
before the Seventeenth Amendment, which introduced the second proviso
lo Art. JIA(I), came into force, and that the scheme was not hit by that
proviso. [146 E-HJ
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 S.C.R, 143, followed.
Per Hidayatullah and Shela!, JJ : Since the land of the petitioner was
reduced to something below the ceiling fixed by law, compensation at a
rate which \vas not lower than the market value must fn paid to him. fl47
C-F]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 125 of 1966.
Petition und;r Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Hardev Singh and S. S. Khanduja, for the petitioners.
K. L. Gossain, 0. P. Malhotra and R. N. Sachthey, for the
respondents.
The Judgment of SunBA RAO c. J. and SJKRI and BACHAWAT
JJ. WAS de!iverd by SIKRI, J. The separate Judgment of HIDAYATULLAH and SHELAT, JJ. was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH.
166
SUPllBME COUJlT REPORTS
[1967] 2 S.C.R.
Sikri, J. This is a petition under art. 32 of the Constitution
ch?!lenging the scheme made in respect of the consolidation of
village Dolike Sunderpur. We have today delivered judgment in
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab(') and most of the points in this
appeal are covered by the decision in that case. Two points remain
to be dealt with iri this case.
The first question that arises is wh~ther the scheme in so far
as it makes reservations of land for income of the Panchayat 1,
hit by the second proviso to art. 3 lA. The scheme reserves lands for
phirni, paths, agricultural paths, manure pits, cremation grounds,
etc., and also reserves an area of 100 kanals 2 marlas (standard kanals) for income of the Panchayat.
W~ have already held in
Ajit Singh's(') case that acquisition for the common purposes such
as phirnis, paths, etc., is not acquisition by the State within the
second proviso to an. 31A. But this does not dispose of the question
whether the reservation of land for income of the Panchay3t is
acquisition of land by the state within the second proviso to art. 31 A.
We held in that case that there was this essential ..!ifference between "acquisition by the State" on the one hand and "modification
or extinguishment of rights" on the other that in the first case the
beneficiary is the State while in the latter case the beneficiary of
the modification or the extinguishment is not the State.
Here it
seems to i;s that the beneficiary is the Panchayat which falls within
the definition of the word "State" under art. 12 of the Constitution.
The income derived by the Panchayat is in no way different from its
any other income. It is true that s. 2(bb) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prev~ntion of FragmentatiC':!) Act, 1948,
defines 'common purpose' to include the following purposes :
" .... providing income for the Panchayat of the village
concerned for the benefit of the village community."
Therefore, the income can only be used for the benefit of the village
community.
But so is any other income of the Panchayat of a village to be used. The income is the income of the Panchayat and
it would defeat the whole object of the second proviso if we were to
give any other construction. The Consolidatior\ Officer
could
easily defeat the object of the second proviso to art. 31 A by reserving for the income of the Panchayat a major portion of the land
belonging to a person holding land within the ceiling limit. Therefore, in our opinion, the reservation of 100 kanals 2 marlas for the
income of the Panchayat in the scheme is contrary to the second
proviso and the scheme must be modified by the competent authority
accNdingly.
(I) 11967] 2 S.C.R. 143
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHAGAT RAM v. PUNJAn (Sikri, J.)
167
This takes us to the second question raised by the State, in the
alternative. On behalf of the State it has been argued that acqui·
sition had already taken place before the Seventeenth Amendment
came into force, and, therefore, the scheme is not hit by the second
proviso to art. 3IA. The relevant facts arc contained in the affidavit of Jaswant Singh Bhutani, Officer on Special Duty, and arc as
follows :
"The village was notified for consolidation l'ide Punjab Government Notification No.
57/G/17041 -A dated
1-9-1956 which was duly published and a proper notice
under rule 4 of the Consolidation Rules was issued which
was also published in the village in the prescribed manner.
The Scheme was prepared by the Consolidation Officer
under the Act in consultation with the rightholders and
Advisory Committee of the village on 15-1-1959 and the
rightholders were invited to file objections under section
19(1 J of the Act against the draft scheme as required within
30 days of the said publication. The objections were
tendered which were
duly
considered
and
after
consideration of the same the scheme was confirmed
under section 20(3) of the Act by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, on 11-3-1959. The confirmed scheme was also published in the village under
section 20(4) of the Act on 25-3-1959. That an area meassuring 100 kanals 2 marlas (standard) was reserved for the
income of the Panchayat according to the requirements of
the village.
So far as the reservation for the common purposes of the village was concerned, neither the petitioner nor
any rightholders of the village filed any objections against
the said reservation.
In pursuance of the same, the
repartition of the land was effected on 30-4-59 and the plots
of land were allocated to the rightholders as required under
the Act. There were 90 objections against repartition
under section 21(2) of the Act and all of them have been
disposed of.
In the meantime, some of the rightholders
in village Dolike Sunderpur went to the High Court and
filed a writ petition No. 531 !!959 and the Hon'ble
High Cnurt by it :udgment ai...i order dated 25-11-1959
quashed the scheme but upon a Letters Patent Appeal filed
by the respondents herein, the High Court restored the
scheme. The possessions were not transferred in view of
the stay orders obtained by the rightholders of that village
from the High Court."
It is clear from this affidavit that possession has not been transferred in pursuance of the repartition. The learned counsel for the
petitioners relies on this fact and says that in view of s. 23A and
s. 24 the "acquisition" does not take place till all the persons entitled
168
SUPRBMI! COURT
REPORTS
[1967) 2 s.c.R.
10 possession of holdings under the Act have entered into possession
. of the holdings.
Sections 23A and 24 read as follows :
"23A. As soon as a scheme comes into force, the
management and control of all lands assigned or reserved
for common purposes of the village under section I 8, shall
vest 'in the Panchayat of that village which shall also be
entitled to appropriate the income accruing therefrom for
the benefit of the villagecommunity, and the rights and
interest of the owners of such lands shall stand modified
and extinguished accordingly.
24. (I) As soon as the persons entitled to possession of
holdings under this Act have entered into possession of the
holdings, respectively allotted to them, the scheme shall be
deemed to have come into force and the possession of
the allottecs affected by the scheme of consolidation, or,
as the case may be, by repartition, shall remain undisturbed until a fresh scheme is brought into force or a change
is ordered in pursuance of provisions of sub-section (2), (3)
and (4) of section 21 or an order passed under section 36 or
42 of this Act.
(2) A Consolidation Officer shall be competent to
exercise all or any of the powers of a Revenue Officer
under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act XVII of
I 887), for purposes of compliance with the provisions of
sub-section (!)."
It seems to us clear from these provisions that till possession
has changed under s. 24, the management and control does not
vest in the Panchayat under s. 23A.
Not only does the management
and control not vest but the rights of the holders are not modified
or extinguished till persons have changed possession and entered
into the possession of the holdings allotted to them under the scheme.
Mr. Gosain, the learned counsel for the State, tried to meet this
point by urging that by virtue of repartition under s. 21, the rights
to possession of the new holdings were finalised and could be
enforced. This may be so; but this cannot be equivalent to "acquisitior.' within the second proviso to art. 31A.
Jn the result we hold that the scheme is hit by the second proviso to art. 31 A in so far as it reserves I 00 kanals 2 marlas for the
income of the Panchayat. We direct the State to modify the scheme
to bring it into accord with the second proviso as interpreted by us,
and proceed according to law. There would be an order as to ~osts.
Hidayatullah, J. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the scheme made in respect of the consolidation
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
r
G
H
BHAGAT RAM v. PUNJAB (Hidayatullah, J.)
169
of the villa~ Dolike Sunderpur. We have in our judgment, in
the compamon case, dealt with the ~ond proviso to Art. 31A(l)
{a). Here too land is reserved for the Panchayat. We have indicated in our judgment in the companion case that no matter for
what purpose the acquisition takes place, if the land of a tenant
cultivating the land is reduced to something below the ceiling fixed
by law compensation at a rate which is not lower than the market
rate must be paid to him. We have also indicated how this com·
pensation must be worked out. When the Constitution speaks of
market value, it is not possible to find compensation in advantages
which might accrue indirectly.
Our brethren have held that the reservation of 100 kanals 2
mar/as to enable the Panchayat to raise an income is contrary to the
second proviso and that the scheme must be modified accordingly.
Our approach to the problem is different. We have shown in the
judgment in the companion case that the test is the deprivation of
land which makes the land of a cultivating tenant go below the ceil·
ing fixed for such land by law. If this happens then compensation
for the acquisition of land which brings down the holding to something below the ceiling must be paid at rates which are not below
the market rate. We would accordingly have made the declaration
and left the party concerned to demand compensation for land by
which his ceiling is reduced. There is no question of looking to the
end to which the income may be used and to differentiate between
deprivation of one kind and deprivation of another kind.
According
to us the ceiling fixed bylaw is not to be reduced by acquisitioa by the
State unless compensation at market rate is paid. No other compensatory factor can be taken note of under the proviso. Nor can
it avail that the land of which the tenant is deprived is to be put to
some other use by the Panchayat thereafter. Such acquisition without compensation is unconstitutional and we cannot add a proviso
of our own to the proviso enacted in the Constitution. We
would
accordingly allow the petition making a declaration on the lines
indicated and leaving the party to demand compensation if his land
is reduced below the ceiling.
In the circumstances we would award no costs.
ORDER
The scheme made in respect of the consolidation of village
Dolike Sunderpur is hit by the second proviso to Art. 31A of the
Constitution in so far as it reserves 100 kanals 2 mar las for the in·
come of the Panchayat. The State is directed to modify the scheme
to bring it into accord with the second proviso as interpreted
in the majority judgment(') in Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 1966 and
to proceed according to law. There would be.no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
(I) (1967) 2 S.C.R.143.
Ml9Sup CI/66-12