# PUNJAB v. AMAA SINGH - **Citation:** [1974] 3 S.C.R. 152 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1974-01-21 - **Bench:** D. G. Palejcar, V. R. KRISHNA lYEil, R. S. Sariwua - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/punjab-v-amaa-singh-6237 - **Pages:** 48 ## Headnote Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 c-f 1953) Ss. lOA and 18Scope o/. · Interpretation of Statutes. Section JOA(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenu.a Act, 1953, provides that no transfer or other disp01ition of land which is comprised in a surplus area [as defined in s. 2(Sa)[, at the commencement of the Act, aball affect the utilization thereof for the resettlement of e.iected tenants; and s. lOA(c) provides that for the purpose of determining the surplus area, any judgment, decree ·or order of a court or otMr fllltlwrity, which diminishes the surplus area, shall be ignonld. Under the Act, landowners who had land in excess of the 'permissible aree' coluld reserve for themselves lands· to the extent of the permissible area; and the relit, excluding the pertni.uible area of the tenants, was the surplus area of the landoWner. Section 18 pro~lde3 that a teoant who baa been in conttnuous occupation of the land comprised ln his tenancy for a tirlnimum period of 6 Y~. shall be entitled to ~base from the landowner, the land eo held by him. At tbe coi1UJiencement of the Act. on April IS, 1933, a landowner owned three items of property which did not fom1 part of her ~ area. One of the item& wa• under her self-cultivation while there weft tenants on the other' two. Thoao tenants later gave up possesalon llPd abandoned the laD.-ncr after gifting tion by the tenant; but the Collccto; f~~~d:hon r~qUI~es 6 years continuous occupa-. the period at the time of their application undc~rtSe rlc8spoTndhcntsrdha~ n~t CC?mphlc.tcd null"ty Th ~ "t ld · · eo cr m .act IS t us a 1 • ere ore, 1 cou not be contended that the orders of purchase in favour of the rcspo_ndcnts passed by the concerned officer under s 18 h d b fi 1 and not havmg been t a "d b. d h · a ecomc na . sc Sl e m t e other authority determining the surplus ar.:a. (c) There is no provision ins. 18 to gi;c notice to the Collector who is to declare the surplu~ area and so, the Stat~ (represented by the Collector). which is ~·itally conceme~ m the resettl~ment of eJ<:Ctcd tenants by utilising the surplus area, bas no OpportunitY to present 115 .case aga1nst the fraudulent character o[ the proceed in~ ~nder s. 18 before the Assistant ~Hector. The State, not being a party to that onkr, many case, canryot be b<;~und by 1t, wh:u.:vcr may b: the cffc;;t as between the p.~rt ies to those procccdmgs. Smcc the State 1s not 1\ party it has no eight or app~a l or rcvi~w [172Bj • . 18_ (!) The authority under s. lOA ll_!aY ignore the orJcr or the authority umkr s. (a) There is an npnarcnt conflk"t bctwL-en Ss. 10 and 18 anli the b~ic judicial approach. sh~uhJ be to harmon_i-c the two sections. The major premise of statutory constructiOn IS that the rule ol law mu't run close to the rule of life anJ the court mu~l reJd i.nro an enactment, l;~ngu;~g.: pcrmitdng, the meaning which promotes.. th~ bcmgnant mtent of the lcs~1:won in pro:feren~e to the one which pervertS the s.:h.:rr.e !lf the 6tatute. The objL"CtS of tbe a1:rarian reform undeclyins the Act are :(a) to Jmpa_rt security of tenure; (b) to make the tiLlc:r the owrn!r; and (c) to trim large l.1nd holdmgs. thus creating peasant proprietorships ensuring even dbtribution or bnd OW!ll"rshlp. The intendment of the statute is that reservation was to be made by a l~ndo~ ncr to enable 'clf-<:ulti,·ation, anc.l so, landowners could cjL'Ct tenants. Out, SlllCc agr.1ri.an tcfonn mu~t promote not eviction but s,-curity or tl:nul"\:, it txcamc ~ary for the State to create surplus urea of a consid.:rablc e:'l.tcnt, so that, th.: c~iC1c:d tcn~nts could be rehabilitated on such surplu$ lanu.~. enjoying lix:ity of tcn~r.: and paying rent to the owrn!rs. The suc.;..-ss of the: s.:hcme ·arlis and d-.-.:r.:cs and the hk~. an.! w, care was wken in s. JOA(c) to interdict alienations nod to isn t?r~ d,'CC\:L'S and orders which diminhhcd the surplus pool. Such a strategic provLSH>n must r~ive a benignantly sp:~.cious comtruction. [l60H, J6lf, 157Hj {b) There i~ no force in the contcntiun that th.: bcndit under s. lS wouiJ b.: ccmpktcly nullified and oblih:ratcd if s. l OA(cl wen: to pn:vail ~ nc.l uppl)" to (l(\).:r> under i. 18. Thot~gh S. lOA I c) u..c! the words ·~hull be ignorcd' it is no.t C\'UY onkr under 1. J 8 that would hav.:: to be: ignored but <>nly thl>Sc: ordcn 1\ htch hl\C th.: df,'Ct of dimini,hinllthe )Urplus urea. The pc:r.on "'ho i:s ctltitkd to pun:ha": undcr '· l~ l$ a pcr~on la\\{ully inducted on the land ~~~ t1 tenant. !h~ C:l_~.,. unJ.:~ ,th_e $Cl1wn would be, (i) or tenant~ who ure eligible to purcha-.: .~Y v1rtue ot ~ )t~rs ~ontt nuoul o.::cupation of lanJ in their pcrmis.ibl~ ur.:.t, anli (u) of t.:n:~nts n."'.:ttl~ l'n 'urplu1 uro:a of the landowner aftcr 6 yean cnntinuous occup;rtion. The: rurcha~ in the: lit>t caliC being from th~ tt"nant"s po:~1i~ibl.: ~1'\:a .i~ !lutsillc: t.h.: surpiiJ!! ar<~ of the landowner and d~ not have the ell~·t of nty'm s. lOA( c) lJICludes the officers u;tder s,. 18. :rhe plain meaning of the sub-sectio!l ~s tha.t any order by an.r authonty which shrmks the surplus area of the landowner IS mvalid to the extent llud down in that clause, and orders under s. 18, if they diminish the surplus area suffer the same fate .. The High Court was wrong in inferring from the statement of oJ:)jects and tea• sons that 'other authorities' ins. 10A(c) are arbitrators or such'like·agencies and not authorities ·under the Act. The objects and reasons relating to the! clause of a bill may be read for finding the object of the law and not to control its amplitude. The purpose as revealed in the statement of objects is that the legislature wanted to ensure B the iMulnerability of the surplus pool provision to attacks; by ignoring judicial and quasi-judicial orders of every sort. This object of s. 10A(c) cannot be fulfilled unless the widest meaning were given to the expression 'court or other authority'. Nor is there any basis for truncating the ambit of 'other authority'. 'Other authority' is every other authority within or without the Act. [168F, 169B, 171A·B] (4) Further, the expression 'transfer or other disposition of land' in s. JOA(b) C covers leases, which by very definition, are a species of transfer of land. In the ptesent case, the lands in dispute fell outside the landowner's reserved area and were therefore included in her surplus area .. The first respondent, to be entitled to· be a · lessee, must prima facie show that the alienation in his favour, as a lessee, does not violates, lOA(b) which prohibits all transfers and other dispositions which diminish . the surplus area of the landowner. Under s. 2(1), the word 'landowner' includes also the Jessee and the permissible area of the tenant is excluded from the surplus area of the landowner. Merely because of the outstanding leases in favour of the prior tenants at the. commencement of the Act, the two items wbich were earlier D leased to tenants do not ipso facto fall outside the surplus area of the landowner. That would be so only if they are comprised in the permissible area of the tenant on the relevant date but there is no evidence to that effect. In relation to the prior tenants no such claim has been set up by the first respondent, and the first respondent was not a transferee from the prior tenants, but a de novo tenant. After the prior tenants gave up possession the lands came into tile actual possession -of the landowner and the leases were extinguished. It follows, that one item was always in the possession of the landowner and other two came into her possession subsequent to the coming into force of the Act, that those three items of property should be comput, E ed as part of the landowner's surplus area, and that s. 1 OA(b) operates to invalidate the alleged leases to the respondents, since they diminish the surplus area of the land· owner. The respondents, therefore, had no right, as tenants; to purchase under s. 18. [1670, 167H-I68D] (5) I.t could not be conten~ed that even if leases are prohibited by s, JOA(b) the sub-section does not affect mvoluntary transfers and that since a purchase under s. 18, effects an involuntary transfer it is n?t affected by s. 1QA(b). The three subF clauses of s. lOA, read together, show that 1f the landowner by any act or omission of his suffered a ~iminution in the surplus area by a transfer: voluntary or otherwise contrary to the nght of the State Government to dispose of it, .such a transfer is liable t~ be set aside. . The expression 'transfer' is wide enough to cover transfers by operatiOn of law, as m the present case, un<;ler s. 18. To uphold the contention of the respondents that involuntary transfers are not affected would stultify s, lOA and the scheme of the statute altogether as they would diminish the available surplus area of a landowner. Moreover, special exclusion to save transfers by way of G inheritance and compulsory land acquisition by the State would be supererogatory had involuntary transfers been automatically excluded. from s. JOA(b). (172Hl The Court expre_ssed the hope that land reform measures would be quickly implemented, because, 10 the present case, more than a score of years notwitbstandfug the processes of fixing 'reserved areas and surplus areas' on the strength of which alone confirrnent of proprietary rights on tenants and resettlement of a ejected tenanb could proceed, are still lingering. [176C] H Mam &i v, State of Punjab I.LR. (1969) 2 Pun. & Har. 680; 682-683, over-ruled. A B .-J c D E F G H l'UNJAB V. AMAR SINGH 155 . Chari v. Seshadri [1973] 11S.C.C. 761, Bahadur Singh v.f.Muni [~ubrat P?69J 2 S.C.R. 432, Kaushalya Devi v. K. L. Bansal, [1969] 2.S.C.R. 1048.and Feroz1 /AI Jain v. Man Mal {1970] 3 S.C.C.t181, referred to. Per Sarkaria J. (dissenting) : (1) (a)" The Collector (Surplus Area) would be entitled to ignore the order of the Asstt. Collector under S. 18 independently of s. lOA of the Act if the order b~sed on the compromise is void and a nullity. But if it is only voidable or erroneous~ Jt could be avoided only by way of appeal review or revision or in other appropna~e pro· ceedings, known to law and the Collector (Surplus Area) could go behtnd tt only when it is so set aside, or if the provisions of s. lOA entitle him to do so. (b) An order is null and void if the quasi-judicial ttibunal passing it lacks in· herent jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. In the .present ca_se, the Assistant Collector who made the order under s. 18 was duly mvested Wllh jurisdiction under the section. The respondents were . tenants and merely because theY were related to the landowner they could _not be denied the rights and privileges under the Act. The allegatt~ns in the purchase application about the applicants' being in continuous ~upatu;m of the lands comprised in their tenancy for the requisite period, coupled wtth adml~ sion by the landowner in the compromise, furnished sufficient material on the bas1s of wh1ch the autho,rity could ha~e been satisfied about the existence of all the facts essential for the exercise of his jurisdiction under s. 18. (191F, 192E] (c) It is not correct to say, that on the facts of the instant case the Assistant Collector passed the orders solely on the basis of the compromise without appl.Ying his mind to the facts of the case. Application of mind is evident from the crrcumstance that he assessed the price to be paid by each of the applicants who thereafter did so. The mere fact that he did not record a finding in so many words th~t he was satisfied from such and such material in regard to the existence of the basic conditions necessary for making the order under s. 18 did not render hill order a nullity when such .• material was otherwise evident on the record. Therefore, the order uqaer s. 18 was not 'a nullity and it could not be ignored as non-est by the Collector (Surplus Area). [192E] K. K. Chari v.,R. M. Seshadri [1973]1 SCC 761, Nagindas Ramdas v. Da/patram lclrchram Civil Appeal No. 2479/72 decided on 30-11-1973, Smt. Ujjom Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 S.C. 1621=[1963)1 SCR 778 and Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 907 (910)=[1964]1 SCR 495, followed. (d) The Collector (Surplus Area) and the Collector acting under s. 18, are coordinate .authorities exercising separate and distinct jurisdictions. lf one feels that a certa1 !1 order passed by the other in the exercise of his distinct jurisdiction is err on· e~us 1t was open to that authority to get it rectified in the appropriate manner proVIded by the Act, that is, by way of appeal, review or revision. The provisions in regard to appeal, review and revision against an order of the Assistant Collector under s. 18 are, under ss. 24 and 2S of the Act ss. 80 to 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules framed under the Act, or in the Tenancy Act, as to who can file an appeal or revision against the decision or order. of the Collector exercising jurisdiction under s. 18; and, in view of the long pract!ce th~re could be no doubt that the State Government or its department ~an, 1f aggneved or.prejudiced by such a decision, go in appeal or revision against Jt. A person who 1s not a party to a decree or order, may with the leave of the Appell~te Court prefer an appeal and as a rule, leave will not be refused to a penon who IDJght have been made a party to the proceedings. ·In any case, the State or the. deparyment c~uld. have .JI?Oved the Financial Commissioner to set right the ille· ga}liY or l!flpropnety ,m re~~10n. The Financial Commissioner under the Tenancy ~ct has Wide ~owers .m re~Is!on to correct errors committed by the inferior· authorities l_lnd. there IS no time bm1t to the exercise of the revisional power. Once the ~ppbcation of t~e. ten~nt under s. 18 has been allowed and the order ill not set aside m l,IP.peal or revision, It ~om~ final and remains immune to an attack against its ":3hd1ty on aqy ground, mcl?dmg that of collusion, before the coordinate authorities under the Act deali11g With the question of the determination of surplus area. In the present ~ase th~ c;:ollector (Surplus Area) could not go behind the orders under s. 18 or himself Sit tn appeal over them, especially when the officer who passed the two ~nl~rs happended to be the s!!m~ ~rsqp. (194q 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 3 S.C.R. Amir Chand v. State of Haryana 1971 PIJ. 449, Securities Insurance Co. [1894] 2 Ch. 410, Province of Bombay v. W. I. Automobile Association A.I.R. 1949 Born. A 141, Heera Singh v. Veerka, A.I.R. 1958 Raj. 181, Shivaraja v. Siddamma A.I.R. 1963 Mys, 127, Executive Officer v. Raghavan Pil/ai A.I.R. 1961 Kera!a 114, B., an Infant, [1958J 1 Q. B. 12; Govinda Menon v. Madhvan Nair AJ.R. 1964 Kerala 235(DB), Punjab State v. Dr. Iqbal Singh [1965] Punjab Law Journa1110, Mam Raj and ors v. State of Punjab J.L.R. [1969] 2 Punj. and Haryana 680 and Shyamlal v. State ofGu}arat, [1965]2 S.C.R. 4571 referred to. • (2) Th~ view taken by the High Court with regard to the interpretation and mter-relation of s. lOA and s, 18 is sound and therefore s. 18 prevails overs. lOA and so, the authority under s. 1 OA cannot ignore the order of the authority under s. 18. [197B] (a) The two canons of interpretation applicable to the statute are, (i) if choice lies between two alteraative constructions, that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating; and that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncer. tainty friction or confusion into the working of the system and, (ii} if there is an apparent confiict between different provisions of the same enactment they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect may be given to both. [19 SE] King Emp~ror v. B~ri Lal Sarma [1944]49 CWN 178 {PC)=72 lA 57, referred to. B c (b) Section 18 is designed to promote one of the primary objects of the Act, namely, of procuring ownership of the land to the tiller on easy terms. The self· sufficing machinery of this section is available for purchase of their tenancies to D the tenants inducted before or after April IS, 1953, by the landowner, equally with tenants settled by the Government on the surplus area. The Act does not ta!.e away the right of the landowner to induct tenants on such area. Every sale made by the operation of s. IS in favour of a tenant admilled by the landowner on the surplus area, causes diminution of the surplus area or affects the utilisation thereof by the Government. Under s. 10A(c) every judgment, decree or order of a court or the authority, which diminishes the surplus area shall be ignored. If sales in favour of tenants inducted by the landowner after April IS, 1953 were to be ignored under s. JOA(c) then it will reduce the w~rking of the system of the E Act to a mockery, because it will present the spectcle of manifest contradiction and absurdity of an Act giving a right with one hand and taking it away by another. The adoption of such an interpretation may not completely obliterate s. 18 but it will certainly truncate it, with reference to the category of tenants inducted by the landowner after AprillS, 1953. (1950] (3) The conflict between the two provisions can be avoided only if the ~eneral words 'other authority' ins. lOA( c) are'I'ead ejusdem generis·with the specific words 'jud!!IIlent, decree or order of a court' which immediately precede them. F Thus construed, the general words 'or other authority' will not take in an authority exercising jurisdiction under s. I 8 of the Act. [196B·C} (4) The lease created by the landowner in the present case, ceased to subsist as ~oon .as the Collector made orders of purchase under s. 18 in favour of the respondent. The question whether the extinct lease which preceded the purchase orders was a transfer or not, did not therefore survive for decision. [l97A] BMjafl Lal v. Pufljab State [1968] 70 I.L.R. 664, Bishan Singh v. Punjab State [1968] 47 LLt·284 and Labhmi Bai v. State of Haryana {1971] LXXIII Punj. L.R. 815, referred to. Further the land comprised in the lease of the prior tenants was far less than their permiSible limit and the High Court rightly presumed that the lands were within their permjaible area. since there was no evid~nce that they held any other land. Surplus area has to be determined, as appears fro!YJ s. 19F, with ref~rence to the situation as on AprillS, 1953, when the Act came mto force. The d1sput~d iand beld by the prim: tenants was within their pennissible area an~ therefore tt could not be included m the surplus area of the landowner. At the ttme when the Collector (Surplus Area) took up derermination of the surplus area, these lands were still comprised in a tenancy though under a different tenant, namely the first G H A B c D PUNJAB v. AMAR SINGH (Krishna lyer, /.) 15 7 TCSpondent. Such change of the tenant does not amou~t .to a future acq~sition of land, comprised in that tenancy, by the landowner Within the contemplation of s. l9A or s. 19B of th~ Act. [197H·I98D] Bhagwan Da.s v. The Stare.of Punjab, [1966} 2 SCR SJJ, followed. Harchand Sillgh v. PUfliab Slate, (1964) 66 P.L.R. 285; 1963 P.LJ. 144, approved· (5) The expression 'transfer and other disposition of land' in s. IOA(b) does not include completed sales eff~ under s. 18. T~e w~!ds 'transfer or other ciisposition of land' must be restricted to volu!!taiY dtsposttions of land made by the landowner and cannot be extended to cover mvoluntaz":ot' transfers brought about by operation of law or circumSta~ beyond the control of the landowner. This is the only reasonable interpretation of the words 'transfer or other disposition of land' ins. lOA (b) which is consistent wit~ s.l8 and can reconcile and keep effective both the sections. The two types of mvoluntary transfers, namely compulsory acquisition o! land by Go~rnmcnt or by an heir by inheritance are only illustrative of the intention of the le&tSlature. [196 D} CIVIL APPELLA TB JUPJSDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos •. 1755 and 1756 of 1967. From the judgment and order dated the 4th October, 1966 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 854 and 855 of 1963. v. c. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants. S. K. Dhingra for the respondents. E The Judgment of D. G. PALEKAR and V. R. XJUSHNA IYER.,JJ. was delivered by Krishna Iyer, 1. R. S. SARKAIUA, J. ga.ve a dissenting Opinion. F G H KRISHNA IYER, J. These two appeals by the State of Haryana challenge the High Court's approach to an interpretation of twocrucial provisions of a land reforms law, namely, ss. 10-A and 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (X of 1953) 1953 (for short called "the Act"). Counsel for the appellants complains· that if the view upheld by the High Court of subordinating s. 10-A to s. 18 were not upset by this Court, large land holders may extricate their surplus land in excess of the ceiling set, through legal loopholes, such as have been practised in the present case. If make-believe deals and collusive proceeding, he argues, may maneouvre through tlie legal net cast by s. 10-A of the Act interdicting alienations and orders which diminish the surplus pool intended for re-settlement by the State of ejected tenants,- the agrarian reform mea!lure would' be reduced to a paper tiger or socio-economic eyewash. Certainly land reforms are so basic to the national reconstruction of the ne.; order envisaged by the Constitution that the issue raised in this case desen·e!l our anxious attention. We have to bear in mind the a, tivist, though inarticulate, major premise of statutory construction that the rule of law must run close to the rule of life and. the court must read into an enactment, language permitting that meaning which promotes the benignant intent of the legislatio~ in preference to the one which perverts the scheme of the statute 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 3 S.C.R. on imputed legislative presumptions and assumed social val~es valid in a prior era. An aware court, informed of this adaptatiOn in the rules of forensic interpretation, hesitates to nullify the plain object of a land reforms law unless compelled by its language, and the crux of this . case is just that accent when· double possibilities in the chemistry of construction crop up. A breif survey of the relevent facts leading up to the legal controversy. seeking resolution in these appeals will help focus forensic attention. on the. provisions of the Act which bear upon the is.sue. A lady by name Lachhman had considerable agricultural property, far in excess of the relatively liberal ceiling set by the Act which came into force on April 15, 1953. She had a daughter Shanti Devi and son-in-law Amar Singh, respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1755 of 1967, whose brother Indraj is the respondent in the connected appeal No. 1756 of 1967. AnneKure (B) to the writ petitions is an order dated May 11, 1962 passed under the Act and the Rules by the Collector (Surplus Area) Sirsa. It is this order which has been succes~fully attacked in the writ petitions and is the subject-matter of the present appeals. The facts stated therein have not been reversed in the judgment of the High Court a1_1d we have to proceed on the assumption that those statements are correct. We are concerned with three khasras Nos. 177, 265 and 343, in all over 131 acres of land. At the commencement of the Act, khasra No. 1.77 was under Mst. Lachhman's selfcultivation but there were two tenants. under her, Chandu and Sri Chand, on other two plots. Together, these three plots constitute a large slice out of her surplus areas and are now claimed by the respondents, Amar Singh and Indraj, as their own under a purchase ordered by the Assitant Collector who is the competent authority under s. 18 of the Act (Annexure A to the writ petitions) Appellant's counsel urges that the history of the derivation of title of th~se claimants needs to be sceptically studied, the relationship of the parties being that of mother and daughter, son-in·law and brother and the heavy impact being slicing off a good chunk from the surplus area, otherwise available for re-settlement of evicted tenants. At the outset it must be mentioned that the two tenants, Chandu and Sri Chand who. were on the land on the determinative date (April 15, 1953) presumably showed no. interest in claiming rights granted to tenants under the Act, which were subject, of course, to their possessing lands less. than the permissible 'area'. We have no information in this case what the total extent of lands in the possession of these two tenants was and whether they had chosen to keep other lands in preference to the ones under· Mst. Lachhman. We need not speculate on how or why they left the suit plots but may note that they were on the holding on the key date in 1953 and if later they did not keep their possession (abandoned or surren· dered) the tenancy terminated and on the facts of this case the lands came into the actual possession of the land holder, Mst. Lachhman, no Gther legal inference being possible than that the A B c D E F G H A B c D F G H ~.1AB ll. ~ SINGH (Kri.rlma lyer, ]. ) 159 leases were extiogqished and the lands reverted to the landlady on general princii>!es of taw. In short, we have to proceed on the assiirpption that one .. pl~t, namely, khasra No. 177 had always been in·the se1f·cultivation of the landlady and that thetwoteoa'ntcd plots, namely, kha.sras' Jl.fos. 265 and 343, ca~e into the khas pos.session of th'e .lanl!lady subsequent to the cruc1al date. Apprehe.ndmg· the statutory peril ·to these lands which were admittedly outside her "reser:ve,(f areas" Mst. · Lachhman went through the exercise of making a gift of the three· lands to her daughter Smt. Shanti (vide mutation No: 445 decided on December 24, 1953 and referred to in Annexqre B). Subsequently, jt is seen that A mar Singh, husband of Shant i and Indr~j. brotlier of Amai Siqgh purported· to apply for purchase of the titt'dholders rigbt in these three plots under s. 18 of the Act making Lachlunan ·and Shanti co-respondents and alleging that they were tenants • qualified .for the statutory benefit. The Assistllili eollector before ·whom the application was made for pur~ chase ·under a; ·ta h.as said in Annexure 'A' to both t;b.e writ petitions that these-· tl'O l!ldies "are said to be big land-owners but had not got thjs li'nd ~ived for their own purpose". Curiously enough, in both the purchase Petitions the parties avoided even an enquiry by the Mi~ COllector as is evident from ~he fotlowing statement from · Attfte:ruro 'A', "Before Ul~ proceedings could start. the pllrties have come to .b;r~ apd they ~ve actually put ~n court a compromise deed which they, have backed up by theu statements," May be, because th~ dubious moves if exposed to . the examination Of an -of!cer mi~ht,prove a fiasco, the close reiations · who figurecS ~ petrtioner and respondents . lulled the Assistant Coliector iJJto rtte<:himically_ acting on the compromise without enquiring into any ot:the eligibility factors before· a purchase could be orde'red. Tiier&w another set of filets . which needs mention at this stage. Even -bofo~ · tile purchase l'roceedings were initiated by the writ petitionora •. ·the Collector bad, as early as. April 1961·, declared the surplui.)lrea of Lachhinan ignoring alienations and including the three khastta.numbeis: . But on appeals carried both by the landholder and her son-in·law and · his brother the Commissioner ordered a further en':luiry. Meanv.:hile, purchase proceedings were started and by a qutck · ~mpromtse, . orders: ·of purchase were obtained, But. all these . p~y~ exercis~ · in .. futility beca~se t~~ Collector," Surplus Area, agaut 1gn~rt!d . the lease$ to the wnt petlttoners as coJlusive and the orclers ~f.purcbase as iheffective in the impugned order, Annexure B Howeve~ the . .l;figli ~urt ·~~ ~ide Annexure ·n· so that the petitioners. before 1t. : ttie son-in-Jaw. and his brother, . were restored to their purc~ases. and the State lost the lands from the surplus pool. The a~~ State· canvasses · the correctness of the supersession of s. 18 and . of certain 9ther legal reasOBiog approved by the Coui:t as its impact on. the· working of the land reform scheme would ~ disa_strous. ~!J!yV;ay, the . law laid down. in this -case was affirmed by .a Full Bench of that C:(lurt. Having regard to all those circumstances a aeries analysis and attempt at harmooisatign .of-the' various provisiona of the Act is necessary now. 160 SUPREME COURT llEPOllT~ [ 1974) 3 S.c.L A flash back· to the geneti<: evolution of the act and the legislative mutations by amendatory efrort to make the law effective, and to unmake judicial decisions which weakened the working of it will help understand the current bio-chemistry of the Act. Any interpretation unaware of the living aims ideology and lepl anatomy of an Act will miss its soul substance-a fiaw which we feel, must be avoideil particularly in socio-Economic legislation with a dynamic will and mission. Now to the legis· lation itself. A brief introduction is found in the reference order of the Full Bench (Shamsher Bahadur, J.) in Mam Raj v. State D/ Put~jab : (1) "The Act passed on 15th of April, ·1953, w.as not the first legislation on the subject and tlie contours of many of the concepts had already taken shape in the two earlier enactments on the subject, namely, the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act, 1950 (Act No. 22 of 1950) and Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Amendment Act, 1951 (President's Act 5 of 1951). The Act, which at once consolidated and amended the existing law on the subject, was. designed "to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters ... As is clear from the preamble, the primary object was the protection of tenants whose ejectments recently from holdings held by landowners owning vast tracts of lands, had taken place on a massive scale: In restoring the rights of tenants ejected after 1 Sth of August, 1947, care was taken that landlords with small holdings were not subjected to harassment by the tenants. For this reason, the concepts of "small landowner", ''permissible area" and ''reservation" were introduced. A small landowner was described as a person whose entire holding in the State of Punjab did not exceed the permissible area which though fixed at 100 standard acres in the Act of 1950 was reduced to 30 standard acr-es in the Act. A Landowner owning larger areas was entitled to reserve the permissible area, and many of the provisions of the Act dealt with the manner and exercise of this right of reservation. The right of the landowner to eject tenants from thereserved or permissible areas was recognized in the Act though under section 9-A(introduced by Punjab Act 11 ofl955) the tenants liable to ejectment on this score had to be accommodated in surplus areas, a minimum period of ten years' tenancy was fixed under section 7 in respect of tenants who were in occupation of land outside the. reserved areas and the right of the tenants who had been ejected after the 15th August, 1947, for restoration to the tenancies was recognised. Provisions were made for the exercise of the other rights of the tenants, the most important of these being the right to purchase the leased lands under section 18 of the Act... · The triple objects of the agrarian reform projected by the Act appear to be (a) to impart security of tenUie (b) to make the tiller the owner, and (c) to trim large land holdings, setting sober ceilings. To convert these political slogans into legal realities to combat the evil of mass evictions, to create peasant proprietorships and to ensur~ even dis- (!) l.L.R, (1969j 2 Pun. &. Har. 680; 682-683. A B c D E F G H A B c 0 E f G H PUNJAB v. AMAlt SINGH (Krishna lyer, ], ) 161 tribution of land ownerships a statutory scheme was fashioned, the cornerstone of which was the building up of a reservoir of land carved out ofthe large landholdings and made available for utilization by the State for re-setting ejected tenants. The scheme of agrarian re-organisation contemplated by the statutes is simple. The legislature fixed a limit on ownership expressively described as "permissible area" land-owners who exceeded this area were allowed to reserve for thernceJves the best lands they desired to keep and this parcel or parcels of land was meaning fully designated as "reserved area". Of course, if he failed to intimate his selection within six months from the commencement ofthe Act to the Patwari concerned, the prescribed authority was empowered to select the parcel or parcels of land whirh such person was entitled to retain for himself. The legislature found that many land-owners had failed to make the reservation in time and so by the Amending Act 46 of 1957 a further period of six months from the commencement of the later Act was given for selecting the land/lands they meant to keep, and further again gave the prescribed authority power to select the parcel or parcels of land on behalf of the defaulting landholders. The intendment of the statute was that the reserved area was to be selfcultivated and so land-owners were competent to eject tenants from the reserved area, although, generally speaking, evictions had been barred. As a matter of fact, landholders were directed to start selfcultivation within six month5 from the date of reservation or the date on which they got possession by eviction. Small holders, i.e., persons who owned less than the permissible area were not only not disturbed by the statute in regard to their ownership but were also allowed to evict tenants from their parcels of land so that they may also become self-cultivators. This process of making the proprietor cultivator naturally would result in the co-existence of possession and ownership at the cost of ejectment of tenants from their holdings. Since agrarian reform must promote not eviction of lessees but security of tenure for them it became necessary for the State to create a considerable surplus pool of lands coughed up by large owners who held beyond the permis~ sible areas. All the tenant refugees from resumed lands were to be rehabilitated on surplus lands and such tenants, enjoying fixity of tenure would continue to pay rents to the owners. Another limb of the peasant proprietorship plan was the conferment of the right to purchase the landlord's right on long-standing tenants with six years continuous· occupancy. If the scheme in the book had worked well on the ground the Act would have paved the way for a new rural map of economic relations even though the problem of the landless poor may perhaps have survived. Such was the conspectus of the legislative scheme. 1t is obvious that this blue-print for a peaceful transformatioJt of agrarian relations assumes the availability of a large surplus area on which the State can settle tenants from the reserved areas and small landholders' holdings. Thus the key to the success of the scheme is the maximising of the surplus land reservoir and sealing off legal leakages 12--3S2SupCf}74 162 SUPDME COUit.T ltBPOJ.TS l 19741 3 s.c.a. throup private alicnatio_ns, coliusive orders and decrees and the like, aDd so care was taken to interdict alienations and ignore decrees and orders which diminished the surplus pool. · At this stage it may be useful to sketch out the broad outlines of the statute with . s~cif..c reference to its provisions and changes. The. Act of 1953 had be m amended often, for the professed reason, atleast once, that judicia) pronouncements have had the effect of defeating the objectives with which the law was enacted. Substantial amen'.lm.ents were made in 1955, 1957 and 1962.