# •• ARJAN SINGH AND ANR v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 2 S.C.R. 347
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-10-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 463 of 1966
- **Bench:** J.C. Shah, G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde, N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arjan-singh-and-anr-v-the-state-of-punjab-and-ors-4502
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation)
Act XVI of 1962 ss. 1(2) and 7-ExP'''ssion "this Act" in s. 7-if
referred to principal Act or Amendment Act-Whether s. 32-KK introduced into the principal Act came into force on 30th October !956 in
view of provisions of s. 1 (2) or from commencement of principal Act.
The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act XIII of 1955 came
into force on March 6, 1955, whereby it was provided that every land
owner would be entitled to select any parcel or parcels of land not exceeding the permissible limit, which was fixed at 30 standard acres. The
principal Act was amended in 1956 by the inclusion of Chapter 4A which
provided for the Government taking ove,r the surplus lands in the hands
of a land owner. Another Amendment Act III of 1959 which was made
operative from January 19. 1959
incorporated into the
principal Act
s. 32(FF) which provided that except in certain specified cases no transfer or other disposition of land effected after 21st August 1956 could
affect the rights of the State Government under the Act.
In 1962 the
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act
XVI of 1962 was passed.
Section 7 of this Act introduced a new s. 32KK into the principal Act whereby it was provided that land owned by
a Hindu undivided family would be deemed to be land of one land owner
and, a partition of land owned by such a family shall be deemed to be
a disposition of land for the purposes of s. 32-FF. Section 1 (2) of the
Amendment Act provided that Sections 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 "shall be deemed
to have come into force on the 30th day of October, 1956 and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force at once,".
The first Appellant together with his son the second Appellant and
two other sons were members of a joint Hindu family which owned agricultural lands in Punjab. The Appellant's family divided their family
property by a Registered Partition Deed on September 6, 1956 and necessary changes were thereafter made in the mutation register.
After Act
Ill of 1959 came into force, the Collector of Sangrur started proceedings
under Chapter 4A of the Act for determining the surplus lands in the
hands of the appellant.
Despite the representations of the Appellants,
the Collector ignored the partition effected in the family 'and held that
about 18 standard acres were surplus in
their hands.
Appeals
filed
by the Appellants before, the Commissioner, Patiala Division and the State
Government were rejected.
The Appellants then challenged the orders of
these authorities by a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but
this was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court who took the view
that as s. 32-KK had become a part of the principal Act, the words
"this Act" in that section must refer to the principal Act and not
to
Section 7 of the Amendment Act. A Division Bench of the Hiith Court
dismissed an appeal following an earlier decision of the Court in B;r SinRh
and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. (1963) P.L.R. 961.
In the
appeal to this C\'.lurt there was no dispute that if the partition entered
into in the family was taken into consideration, the lands held by the
different sharers would be within the permissible; limits.
'
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969) 2 S.C.R.
HELD : The orders impugned in the writ petition must be quashed.
A
A reading of the various provisions of the 1962 Act show that the
legislature. intended that s. 7 of that Act which intraduced s. 32-KK into
the principal Act should be deemed to have come into force on the 30th
October 1956.
The words "this Act" in s. 7 of the Amendment Act
(s. 32-KK of the principal Act) were intended to refer to the Amendment
Act 'and not to the principal Act. It is true that ordinarily when a
section is incorporated into the principal Act by means of an amendment,
reference in that section to "this Act" means the
principal Act.
But
in view of sub-s.
(2) of s. I of the Amendment Ac,t of 1962 th

## Text

A
•
B
> •
~
c
•
D
E
G
H
••
ARJAN SINGH AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS .
October 8, 1968
[J.C. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND A, N. GROVER, JJ.]
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation)
Act XVI of 1962 ss. 1(2) and 7-ExP'''ssion "this Act" in s. 7-if
referred to principal Act or Amendment Act-Whether s. 32-KK introduced into the principal Act came into force on 30th October !956 in
view of provisions of s. 1 (2) or from commencement of principal Act.
The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act XIII of 1955 came
into force on March 6, 1955, whereby it was provided that every land
owner would be entitled to select any parcel or parcels of land not exceeding the permissible limit, which was fixed at 30 standard acres. The
principal Act was amended in 1956 by the inclusion of Chapter 4A which
provided for the Government taking ove,r the surplus lands in the hands
of a land owner. Another Amendment Act III of 1959 which was made
operative from January 19. 1959
incorporated into the
principal Act
s. 32(FF) which provided that except in certain specified cases no transfer or other disposition of land effected after 21st August 1956 could
affect the rights of the State Government under the Act.
In 1962 the
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act
XVI of 1962 was passed.
Section 7 of this Act introduced a new s. 32KK into the principal Act whereby it was provided that land owned by
a Hindu undivided family would be deemed to be land of one land owner
and, a partition of land owned by such a family shall be deemed to be
a disposition of land for the purposes of s. 32-FF. Section 1 (2) of the
Amendment Act provided that Sections 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 "shall be deemed
to have come into force on the 30th day of October, 1956 and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force at once,".
The first Appellant together with his son the second Appellant and
two other sons were members of a joint Hindu family which owned agricultural lands in Punjab. The Appellant's family divided their family
property by a Registered Partition Deed on September 6, 1956 and necessary changes were thereafter made in the mutation register.
After Act
Ill of 1959 came into force, the Collector of Sangrur started proceedings
under Chapter 4A of the Act for determining the surplus lands in the
hands of the appellant.
Despite the representations of the Appellants,
the Collector ignored the partition effected in the family 'and held that
about 18 standard acres were surplus in
their hands.
Appeals
filed
by the Appellants before, the Commissioner, Patiala Division and the State
Government were rejected.
The Appellants then challenged the orders of
these authorities by a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but
this was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court who took the view
that as s. 32-KK had become a part of the principal Act, the words
"this Act" in that section must refer to the principal Act and not
to
Section 7 of the Amendment Act. A Division Bench of the Hiith Court
dismissed an appeal following an earlier decision of the Court in B;r SinRh
and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. (1963) P.L.R. 961.
In the
appeal to this C\'.lurt there was no dispute that if the partition entered
into in the family was taken into consideration, the lands held by the
different sharers would be within the permissible; limits.
'
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969) 2 S.C.R.
HELD : The orders impugned in the writ petition must be quashed.
A
A reading of the various provisions of the 1962 Act show that the
legislature. intended that s. 7 of that Act which intraduced s. 32-KK into
the principal Act should be deemed to have come into force on the 30th
October 1956.
The words "this Act" in s. 7 of the Amendment Act
(s. 32-KK of the principal Act) were intended to refer to the Amendment
Act 'and not to the principal Act. It is true that ordinarily when a
section is incorporated into the principal Act by means of an amendment,
reference in that section to "this Act" means the
principal Act.
But
in view of sub-s.
(2) of s. I of the Amendment Ac,t of 1962 that construction had become imp·ermissible.
Every statute has to be construed as
a whofo and the construction given should be 'a harmonious one. It
was not permissible for the Court to proceed on the basis· that the legislature had enacted sub-s. (2) of s. 1 of the Amendment Act 1962, by
oversight. If any mistake had crept into that section it was for
the
legislature to correct the same. [352 C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 463 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated
March 30, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 24 of 1963.
E. C. Agrawala and Champat Rai, for the appellant.
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J.
Though several questions of law were raised in
this appeal by special leave, after hearing the Counsel for the
parties on one bf those questions, namely on what dates. 32(KK)
of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955 (Act
No. XIII of 1955) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Principal
Acf) should be deemed to have come into force,
we did not
think it necessary to hear the Counsel for the parties on the other
questions raised in the appeal.
Before examining the question of law referred to hereinbefore it is necessary to set out the material facts.
The second appellant is the son of the first appellant. The
appellants alongwith Charanjit Singh and Darshan, the two other
sons of the first appellani were members of a joint Hindu family.
That family owned agricultural lands in the village Hathoa, Tehsil
Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
The principal Act came into
force on March 6, 1955. The preamble to that Act says that it
is an Act. to amend and consolidate the law relating to tenancies
of agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land
reforms.
That Act provided that :
"subject to the provisions of s. 5 every land owner
owing land exceeding thirty standard acres shall be enB
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
~ ..
A
. .,
•
B
.. "
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
ARJAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Hegde, J.)
titled to select for personal cultivation from the land
held by him in the State as a land owner any parcel or
parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate area the permissible limit and reserve such land for personal cultivation by intimating his selection in the prescribed form
and manner to the Collector."
349
The permissible limit is thirty standard acres.
Under that Act,
there was no provision for Government taking over the lands
that were in excess of the permissible limits.
The appellants'
family divided their family properties as per a registered partition deed on September 6, 1956. Thereafter necessary changes
in the mutation register were made..
The principal Act was
amended in ·1956 as per Amendment Act 15 of 1956 which
came into force, it appears several alienations were effected by
to the principal Act Chapter 4A which provides for Government
taking over the surplus lands in the hands of a land owner i.e. the
lands in excess of the permissible limit.
After that amendment
came into force, it appeals several alienations were effected by
the land owners to get out of the reach of the law. Neither the
principal Act nor the Amendment effected in 1956 prohibited any
alienation.
Then came the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands (Amendment) Act, No. III of 1959 which was made operative from January 19, 1959. Among other provisions
that
Amendment Act incorporated into the Act s.
32 (FF) whicb
says :.
"Save· in the case of land acquired by the State
Government under any law for the time being in force
or by an heir by inheritance or up to 30th July 1958 by
a landless person or a small landowner not being a
relation as prescribed of the person making the transfer
or disposition of land, for consideration up to an area
which with or without the area owned or held by him
does not in the aggregate exceed the permissible limit,
no transfer or other disposition of land effected after
21st August, 1956, shall affect the right of the State
Government under this Act to the surplus area to which
it would be entitled but for such transfer or disposition : "
This Section has a proviso which reads :
"Provided that any person who has received any
advantage under such transfer or disposition of land
shal'. be bound to restore it, or to make compensation
for Jt, to the person from whom he received it."
In 1962 the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act, No. XVI of 1962 was passed. It
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 2 S.C.R.
came into force on July 20, 1962. fwo sections in that Act
A
which are relevant for our present purpose are ss. 7 and 1.
Section 7 reads :
"Insertion of new section 32-KK in Pepsu Act 13
of 1955.-After section 32-K of the principal Act, the
followiiJlg section shall be inserted, namely :-
"32-KK. Land owned by Hindu undivided family to
be deemed land of one landowner.-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 ~amily, the landowned
by
such
family shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to
be the land of that landowner and no descemdant shall,
as member of such family, be entitled to claim that in
respect of his share of such land he is a landowner in
his own. right; and
(b) a partition of land owned by a Hindu undivided fanuly referred to in clause (a) shall be deemed to
!le a disposition of land for the purposes of section
32-l~F."
Explanation :-In this section, the expression "descendant" includes an adopted son."
Section 1 sets out the short title and co'llmencement of that Act.
Tbat Sectiun reads :
'
"This .A ct may be called the Pepsi.>
Agncultural Lands
(Amendment
am!
Act, 1962.
Tenancy and
Validation)
(2) frrtion 2, section 4, section 5, section 7 and
section 10 snail be deemed to have come into force on
the 30th day of October 1956 and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force at once."
After the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment)
Act No. III of 1959 came into force, the Collector of Sangrur
started proceedings unc\er Chapter 4A of the Act for determining
the surplus lands in the hands of the appellants.
In those proceedings despite the representations of the appellants, the Collector ignored the partition effected in the family of the appellants
in determining the surplus lands in the hands of the members of
the family.
He considered them as one unit and on that basis
held that eighteen standard acres and St units of lands are surplus
in their hands. There is no dispute that if the partition entered
into in the family had been taken into consideration, the lands
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
•
... '
-
~
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ARJAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Hegde, !.)
351
held by the different sharers are within permissible limit.
The
appellants unsuccessfully went up in appeal against that order to
the Commissioner, Patiala Division.
Against the order of_ the
Conu11issioner, the appellants appealed to the State Government
but that appeal was rejected on September 1, 1961. Thereafter
the appellants filed Civil Writ No. 1418 of 1961 in the High Court
of Punjab at Chandigarh under Art.
226 of the Constitution
challenging the decisions of respondents 1 to 3.
The -learned
Single Judge who heard that petition dismissed the same on November 27, 1962. He held that ass. 32(KK) had become a part
of the principal Act the words "this Act" in that section must
refer to the principal Act and not to s. 7 of the Amendment Act.
The decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of that Court. That bench followed an earlier decision of that Court in Bir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and
Ors. (1). At this stage we may mention that in the Punjab High
Court at one stage there were conflicting decisions on the question of law under consideration.
It is not necessary to refer to
those decisions as grounds on which they differed are referred to
in Bir Singh's case( 1). The decisions which have taken the
same view as taken by the High Court in this case have ignored
the significance of s. 1 (2) of the 1962 Amendment Act. They
have exclusively focussed their attention on s. 32 (KK) and the
supposed reasons for its enactment.
It is a well settled rule of construction that no provision in
a statute should be given retrospective effect unless the legislature
by express terms or by necessary implication has made it retrospective and that where a provision is made retrospective,
care
should be taken not to extend its retrospective effect beyond what
was intended.
To accept the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Judges
of the High Court who decided this case is to completely ignore
sub-s. (2) of s. 1 of the 1962 Amendment Act. That Section in
specific terms says thats. 32(KK) (s. 7 of the Amendment Act)
shall be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of
October 1956. We fail to see how we can ignore this mandate
of the legislature. That provision clearly brings out the intention
of the legislature. There is no ambiguity in it.
It is not possible
to adopt any rule of construction which would necessitate the
Court to ignore that provision.
It is not possible to accept the
conclusion of the High Court that s. 32(KK) must be deemed to
have come into force on the date the principal Act came into
force namely on March 6, 1955. That is not even the case of
the respondents.
Clause (b) of s. 32(KK) which is the clause
relevant for our present purpose would be a meaningless provision unless the same is read along with s. 32 (FF) which was for
(I) [1963] P.L.R.-961.
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 S.C.R.
the first time incorporated into the principal Act in 1959 though
it affects all transfers and other dispositions of land effected after
August 21, 1956. It is not the case of the respondents that the
transfers effected or the partitions made before August 21, 1956
are within the mischief of s. 32(FF) or s. 32(FF) read with
· s. 32(KK). Therefore there is no basis for saying thats. 32(KK)
has been given retrospective effect as from the date the principal
Act came into force.
On a reading of the various provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962,
it appears to us that the legislature intended that s. 7 of that Act
which introduced into the principal Act s. 32(KK) should be
deemed to have come into force on the 30th October 1956. Evidently the draftsman when he drafted s. 7 of that Act had in his
mind the Amendment Act and not the principal Act. The words
"this Act" in s. 7 of the Amendment Act (s. 32-KK of the principal Act) in our opinion were intended to refer to the Amendment Act and not to the principal Act. It is true that ordinarily
when a Section is incorporated into the principal Act by means
of an amendment, reference in that Section to "this Act" means
the principal Act. But in view of sub-s. (2) of s. 1 of the Amendment Act of 1962 that construction has become impermissible.
Every statute has to be construed as a whole and the construction
given should be a harmonious· one. It may be that the legislature
intended that s. 32(KK) should be deemed to have come into
force on the 30th day of October 1956, on which days. 32(FF)
became a part of the principal Act. It is possible that the legislature did not intend to give to that Section the same retrospective
effect as it had given to s. 32 (FF). It is not permissible for us
to proceed on the basis that the legislature had enacted subs. (2)
of s. 1 of the Amendment Act 1962 by oversight. If any mistake
had crept into that Section it is for the legislature to correct the
same and it is not for this Court to proceed on the supposition that
the same was enacted by oversight.
For the reasons mentioned above this appeal is allowed and
the orders impugned in the Writ Petiticm me quashed. The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellants both in this Court
as well as in the High Court.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
A
•
B
,. ...
c
D
E
F