# SHIVDEV SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 426
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** Connected Petition) . (B.P. SrNHA, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K. SuB•A RAO, K. N. Wanchoo, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shivdev-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-2635
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Delegated Legislation-Ceiling on land fixed-Exemption
of efficiently managed farms-Part of rule going beyond rulemaking
power-Not severable-Whole rule ultra virea-The
PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu
13 of 1955), as amended by Act XV of 1956, ss. 32A, 32KRules, 1958, r.31.
The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural ·Lands Act was
enacted in March, 1955. It was amended iil October, 1956,
and Ohs. IV-A and IV-B were added.
Chapter IV-A provides for ceiling on land and s. 32-A in that chapter fixes
the permissible limit of land which could be owned or held
by any person as landlord or tenant under his personal cultivation. Section 32K provides for exemption of efficiently
managed farms consisting of compact blocks on which heavy
investment or permanent structural improvements had been
made, and whose· break·up was likely to lead to a fall in
production. Rules were framed in March, 1958, to carry out
the purposes of the Act. Rule 31 lays down the procedure
how the exemption of efficiently managed farms was to be
determined. Sub.rule (2) provides that the PEPSU Land
Commission, which was to be appointed to advise the State
Government with regard to the exemption of lands from the
..
' -...
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
427
ceiling in accordance with the provisions of .s. 32K, shall
assign marks in the manner provided in sub-r. (4) in order
to decide whether a farm was efficiently managed or not, and
whether it consisted of compact blocks on which heavy invest·
ment or permanent structural improvements had been made
and whose break-up was likely to lead to a fall in production.
Farms were classified as Class A, Class B and Class C farms.
Class A farm was to be deemed to be an efficiently managed
farms, 50% of the area of a farm of Class B was to be deemed
to be an efficiently managed farm, and no area under a farm
of Class C was to be deemed to be an efficiently managed
farm.
In writ petitions filed in this court, the petitioners did
not challenge the constitutionality of Ohs. IV-A and IV-B,
but they challenged the constitutionlity ofr. 31.
Their contention was that the Commission when enquiring into their
claim of exemption under s. 32K(i)(iv) of the Act was bound
to follow the requirem~nts of r. 31 in addition to the fulfil .
ment of the conditions laid down ins 32K(i)(iv). The Petitioners contended that the standards of yields prescribed in
Schedule C under r. 31 were arbitrary, obnoxious, unreasonable, hypothetical, completely unrealistic and unattainable
in any modern farm and were repugnant to the provisions
of the Act. The system of marking evolved under r. 31 was
completely alien and foreign to the Act. Rule 31 went beyond
the power conferred on the State Government under s. 32K
and was ultra vires the Act. The rule was a colourable piece
of legislation and the object of framing it was to defeat the
purpose of the Act so that no exemption may be granted
although the legislature intended to grant exemption to
efficiently managed farms. The rule fettered the judgment
and discretion of the Commission which could not be done
under the Act.
Held, that, Ohs. IV-A was a measure of land reform and
was intended to provide for equitable distribution of land and
with that object s. 32-A provided for ceiling on land holding
by an individual. Before a farm could claim exemption from
the ceiling fixed in s. 32-A, it had to be proved that the farm
was efficiently
managed, it consisted of compact blocks,
heavy investment or permanent structural improvements had
been made on it and its break-up was likely to lead to fall in
production. The first three conditions were concerned with the
efficiency of the farm and the fourth with the yield from the
farm.
1982
S hivdev Singh
....
The Stat• of Punja b
196t
Sldvdev Singh
y.
Thi State of Punjab
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
The Act contemplates the framing of rules to give
objective guidance to the Commission in carrying out its
duties. In evolving the marking system as provided

## Text

_Characters 0–39,898 of 52,201. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39898 for what follows._

1962
K. Chinnaswamy
Reddy
••
State of
Andhra P1adeah
Wanchoo J.
1962
426
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS [196S)
other accused should also be set aside and his
appeal should also be re-heard in the manner indicated above. We therefore set aside the order
of the High Court with respect to the retrial of the
other accused and direct that his appeal will also
be re-heard along with the appeal of the appellant.
Appeal allowed.
SHIVDEV SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(And Connected Petition)
. (B.P. SrNHA, C.J., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuB•A
RAO, K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Delegated Legislation-Ceiling on land fixed-Exemption
of efficiently managed farms-Part of rule going beyond rulemaking
power-Not severable-Whole rule ultra virea-The
PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu
13 of 1955), as amended by Act XV of 1956, ss. 32A, 32KRules, 1958, r.31.
The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural ·Lands Act was
enacted in March, 1955. It was amended iil October, 1956,
and Ohs. IV-A and IV-B were added.
Chapter IV-A provides for ceiling on land and s. 32-A in that chapter fixes
the permissible limit of land which could be owned or held
by any person as landlord or tenant under his personal cultivation. Section 32K provides for exemption of efficiently
managed farms consisting of compact blocks on which heavy
investment or permanent structural improvements had been
made, and whose· break·up was likely to lead to a fall in
production. Rules were framed in March, 1958, to carry out
the purposes of the Act. Rule 31 lays down the procedure
how the exemption of efficiently managed farms was to be
determined. Sub.rule (2) provides that the PEPSU Land
Commission, which was to be appointed to advise the State
Government with regard to the exemption of lands from the
..
' -...
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
427
ceiling in accordance with the provisions of .s. 32K, shall
assign marks in the manner provided in sub-r. (4) in order
to decide whether a farm was efficiently managed or not, and
whether it consisted of compact blocks on which heavy invest·
ment or permanent structural improvements had been made
and whose break-up was likely to lead to a fall in production.
Farms were classified as Class A, Class B and Class C farms.
Class A farm was to be deemed to be an efficiently managed
farms, 50% of the area of a farm of Class B was to be deemed
to be an efficiently managed farm, and no area under a farm
of Class C was to be deemed to be an efficiently managed
farm.
In writ petitions filed in this court, the petitioners did
not challenge the constitutionality of Ohs. IV-A and IV-B,
but they challenged the constitutionlity ofr. 31.
Their contention was that the Commission when enquiring into their
claim of exemption under s. 32K(i)(iv) of the Act was bound
to follow the requirem~nts of r. 31 in addition to the fulfil .
ment of the conditions laid down ins 32K(i)(iv). The Petitioners contended that the standards of yields prescribed in
Schedule C under r. 31 were arbitrary, obnoxious, unreasonable, hypothetical, completely unrealistic and unattainable
in any modern farm and were repugnant to the provisions
of the Act. The system of marking evolved under r. 31 was
completely alien and foreign to the Act. Rule 31 went beyond
the power conferred on the State Government under s. 32K
and was ultra vires the Act. The rule was a colourable piece
of legislation and the object of framing it was to defeat the
purpose of the Act so that no exemption may be granted
although the legislature intended to grant exemption to
efficiently managed farms. The rule fettered the judgment
and discretion of the Commission which could not be done
under the Act.
Held, that, Ohs. IV-A was a measure of land reform and
was intended to provide for equitable distribution of land and
with that object s. 32-A provided for ceiling on land holding
by an individual. Before a farm could claim exemption from
the ceiling fixed in s. 32-A, it had to be proved that the farm
was efficiently
managed, it consisted of compact blocks,
heavy investment or permanent structural improvements had
been made on it and its break-up was likely to lead to fall in
production. The first three conditions were concerned with the
efficiency of the farm and the fourth with the yield from the
farm.
1982
S hivdev Singh
....
The Stat• of Punja b
196t
Sldvdev Singh
y.
Thi State of Punjab
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
The Act contemplates the framing of rules to give
objective guidance to the Commission in carrying out its
duties. In evolving the marking system as provided in r. 31,
the discretion of the Commission was not fettered and its
independence was not made illusory.
So long as the marking
system took into account what was required under s. 32K(i}
(iv), that did not go beyond what was contemplated by the
legislature.
Schedule C did not fix an unattainable standard
and was not a malafide exercise of the power to frame rules
with the object of defeating the intention of the legislature,
The standards of yields were not too high or unattainable.
The creation of Class B farms under r. 31(2) was beyond
the provisions of s. 32K, and hence must be held tn be ultra
vire& that section. The creation of Class B farms was so
integrated with the whole of Rule 31 that it was not possible
to excise Class B farms only from that rule and leave the rest
of the roile unaffected; therefore the whole of r. 31 along with
Schedules B and C must be struck down as ultra vires the
provisions of the Act, particvlady s. 32-K.
There was nothing in the Act to show that once an
efficiently managed farm was taken out of the provisions of
s. 32-A on the advice of the Commission, the State Government could, later on, cancel the exemption and apply s. 32-A
to it, and, hence, r, 31 (3) must be struck down as ultra vire&
the Act.
The proviso tor. 31(4)(b) inasmuch as it obliged the
Commission to apply Schedule C on a mathematical basis,
must be struck down as goinl( beyond the rule-making power
conferred under the Act. The Commission had to take into
account the quality of the land, natural calamities, and the
rotation of crops while determining the yield from land.
Ruis 3 I must therefore be struck down as a whole.
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION :-Petitions Nos. 261
and 365of1961.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of lrulia,
K. P. Bhandari and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the
petitioners (in Petn. No. 261/61).
...
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
429
K. L. Goshin and K. L. Mehta,
for the
petitioners (in Petn. No. 365 of 61).
s. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of
Punjab, N. S. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the
respondentli.
1962. July 27. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
·
W ANCHoo, J.-These two petitions raise a
question as to the validiy and constitutionality of
r. 31 framed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Landt Act (Act No. 13 of 1955) as amended
by Pepeu Act No. 15 of 1956, (hereinafter referred
to as the Act) and will be dealt with together. The
attack: on the rule is practically siinilar in the two
petitions and therefore we shall only give the facts
in Petition No. 261 to understand the nature of the
attack. The petitioners in Petition No. 261 are
landownere ia village Dhamo Majra, District Patiala,
in the State of Punjab. They are running an agricultural farm on a, mechanil'led scale and the area
of the farm measures 4-21 acres. This area is a
compact block of 11md and it ia said that some part
of the area is potentially of high productivity
wh~raas other area is of inferior quality and less
produc. tive capacity by reason of the presence of
alkaline patches of soil therein. The land was
originally scrub jungle and was uneven and extensive reclamation was carried on by the petitioners
a.t heavy cost. They spent a large amount far
terracing and levelling the land, constructing
bundhs, water channels, approach roads and in
standardising the area of the fields. Two wells
were constructed for providing irrigation&! facilities and the petitioners have their own electric substation for the purpol'le.
They have also constructed manure pits and have made permanent structural improvements in the shape of construction of
roads, servant quarters, tractor sheds, cattle-sheds
1982
Shi•ieo Sinzh
v.
Th' Stale of PunjaG
Wan&hoo J,
1962
Shfr1dev Sineh
v.
The State of Panj•b
Waneho3 J.
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
3 S.C.R,
and stores, and have in all incurred expenses over
rupees three lacs for all these purposes. The petitioners are carrying on farming on the basis of
scientifio cultivation practices, sowing practices and
manure practices and because of the use of modern
techniqne the overall yield per aore is very high
keeping in view the fertility and nature of the soil.
On March 4, 1952, the Act wa.s enacted. It
was amended on October 30, 1956 and Chaps. IV-A
and IV-B were introduced therein. The petitioners
have not challenged the constitutionality of these
two chapters and their attack is only on r. 31
framed under the powers conferred on the State
Government under these chapters. The scheme of
Chap. IV-A is to provide ceiling on land and
s. 32-A thereof fixes the permissible limit of land
which can be owned or held by any person iis
landowner or tenant under his personal cultivation.
''Permissible limit" is defined in s. 3 of the Act and
means "thirty standard acres of land and where
such thirty standard acres on being converted into
ordinary acres exceed eighty acres, such eighty
acres". A "standard acre" is defined in s. 2 (1) as
''a measure of land convertible with reference to
yield from, and the quality of the soil, into ordinary
acres according to the prescribed ~cale''. Section
32-B prescribes for returns by the person having
land in excess of the ceiling. Section 32-D provides
that the Collector shall prepare a draft statement in
the manner prescribed showing, among other particulars, the total area of land owned or held by a
person, the specific parcels of land which the landowner may retain by way of his permissible limit
or exemption from ceiling and also the surplus area.
Section 32-E provides for the vesting of the surplus
area in the State Government. Section 32F gives
power to the Collector to take posseassion of the
surplus area. Section 32-G provides for /rinciples
of payment of compensation and seo. 32for the
y
'
3 s.o.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
431
disposal of the 1111rplus area. Then comes s. 32-~
(1) with which we are ma.inly concerned and the
relevant pa.rt of it is in these terms:-
"32-K (1)-The provisions of section 3?A shall
not apply to-
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(ui)
...
efficiently managed farms which consist
of compact blocks
on which heavy
investment or permanent structural improvements have been made and whose
break-up is likely to lead to a fall in
production;
Section 32-P which is in Chap. IV-B providea for
the establishment of a Commi11sion called the Pepsu
land Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
Commission). and sub-ss. (4) and (5) thereof are in
these terms-
"( 4) Subject to the provisions of this Act and
in accordance with any rules which may
be made by the State Government in t.his
behalf. it shall be the duty of the Commission to-
(a)
(b)
( c) advi!lo
the
State
regard to exemption
ceiling in accordance
of section 32.K.
Government with
of lands from the
with the provision
•
1961
Shiwdev 6ingh
v.
The Stat1 of Pnnjab
1962
S/,ivtlev Singh
v.
Thi Slate •f Punjab
~ Wcnehoo J.
432. SUPREME COURT .REPORTS (1963]
''(5) The advice given by the Pepsu Land .
Uommission under clause tc) ofsub-sectiori
( 4) shall be binding on the State Government and notwithstanding anything in
section 32-D no final statement shall,· in
a case in which exemption is claimed
under scotion 32:K be published unless
such advice is included therein."
Section 52 gives power to the Stat.e Government to
frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act.
By virtue of the power conferred on the f:tate
G'overnment to frame rules, Rules were framed in
March 1958 to carry out the purposes ·of the Aot.
We are concerned in the present petitions only with
'r ..
rr. 5 and 31. Rule 5 read with Sch. A provides for
·,
conversion of ordinary acres into standard aeres
and r. 31 lays down how the exemption of eflkiently managed farms shall be determined,· Shh-rule
(I) thereof provides that if any person wishes to
claim exemption from the ceiling under cl, (iv) of
sub-s. ( 1) of s. 32-K of the Act,
he . shall
also furnish information in
form XI to the
'
Collector
alongwith
information
required
through other forms prescribed under the Rules.
Sub-rule (2) lays down that the Commission
shall assign marks in the manner provided in
sub·r. (4) in order to decide whether it is a farm
which is efficiently managed and consists of
compact blocks on which heavy investment structural improvements have been made and whose
;.
break-up is likely to lead to a fall in production;
and further makes the following classification
of farms:-
"Class A : If it is awarded 80 per centum
or more marks:
Class B : If it is awarded 60 to 80 per
oentum marks .
•
a s.o.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. 433
Class C : If it is awarded Jess than 60 per
centum marks."
· ·
It is further provided that a class A farm shall be
deemed to be an efficiently managed farm and fifty
per centum of the area under a farm of Class B
shall, subject to the choice of the landowner, be
deemed to be an efficiently managed farm and that
·no area under a farm of class C shall be deemed to
be an efficiently managed farm. Sub-rule (3) further
provides that '•the above classification of farm
shall be revised by Govrnment annually in . the
months of Jannuary and February, and if any
· efficiently managed farm ceases to be so, the exem•
ption granted in respect there of shall, subject to
to the other provisions of the Act, be withdrawn by
Government''. Sub-rule ( 4) (a) provides that "the
maximum marks to he awarded to a farm, for the
purposes of classification, !!hall be 1,000'' and sub-r.
l4) (b) provides that the features for which marks
are to be awarded are those given in Sch.Band
marks shall be awarded for each feature subject to
the maximum marks noted against each in that
schedule, provided that in allotting marks for
"yield" the Commission shall apply the standard
yields given in· Sch. C. From XI lays down the particulars and there are two Schs. B and C.
Out of
the tot.'ll of 1000 marks, 500 marks are prescribed
for various features mentioned in items I to IX of
Sob. B while 500 marks are for yield. The land
in the former Pepsu tltate is divided into four
classes for the purpose of Sch. B. viz., mountaneous,
sub-montane central. plains and South-eastern
districts.
Schedule C prescribes average yield in
matmds ofvarion"I crops per acre for irrigated and
unirrigated lands.
·
· ·
This in .. brief is tho scheme of Act and r.32 framed thereunder. The petittoners' case is that the
Commission is iaquiring into the petitioners' claim of
I
Shlvtlev Singh
v.
The Sta/1 of Punj<1 i
Wanchoo J,
I
196B
Slfotleo Singh
v.
61 Stat• of Punjab
Jf' a11oh10 J.
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
exemption under s. 32 K (I) (iv) of the Act and in
doing so it is bound to follow the requirements of
r.31 in addition to the fulfilment of the conditions
in ol. (iv) of s.32-K (IJ. The petitioners contend
that the standards of yields prescribed· in soh. C
under r. 31 are arbitrary, obnoxious, unreasonable,
hypothetical, completely unrealistic and unattainable in any modern farm and are repugnant to the
provisions of the Act.. It is further contended that
the system of marking whioh has been evolved
under r. 31 is completely alien and foreign to the
Aot. Relian.oe is placed on behalf of the petHioners on the observations of the Sub-Committeee
·set up by the planning Commission on the problems
of Re-organisation, panel on land Reforms for the
purpose of suggesting standards of efficient cultivation and management and sanctions for the enforcement of standards, when it said that though "an
obvsious test of good husbandry may appear to be the
comparative yield of cropi, or the gross produce
per acre", the Sub-Committee was of the opinion
for various reasons which it mentioned that "the
yield varied with a number of factors whose effects
cannot be measured quantitatively, such as location
the fertility and texture of the soil, the vagaries of
the climate, the incidence of epidemics etc. whieh
are beyond the control. of the farmer".
The SubCommittee was therefore not prepared to apply the
test of yield as the sole test of good husbandry.
The :petitioners further allege that the yield fixed
by Sch. C showed great disparity between it and
the actual average produce per acre for different
orops in different States of India and in different
districts of Pepsu, and obviously results in discrimination. rt is also · urged that the standards fixed
by Sob. C were nnattainable and therefore the
petitioners' olaim for exemption under s. 32 K (1)
(iv) would be seriously jeopardised ifr. 31 is applied.
It is contended that the rule goes beyond the power
'r -
·,
-·
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME (.,"OURT REPORTS
435
conferred on the State Government under s. 32 K
a.nd wa.s therefore ultra vires the Act. Further, it
is urged that r. 31 along with the two t'!chedules
was a colourable piece of legislation and the object
of framing it was to defeat the purpose of the Act
with the intention of seeing that no exemption may
be granted even though the legislature intended
under s. 32 K ( 1) (iv) to grant exemption to efficiently managed farms.
It is also urged that by
making r, 31, the State has fettered the judgment
and discretion of the Commission which it could
not do under the Act. The petitioners therefore
pray that r. 31 should be struck down as ultra vireB
of the Act and also a.s unconstitutional and the.
respondents should be directred not to give effect
to r. 31.
The petitions have been opposed on behalf of
the State of P!Illjab which is successor to the former
State of Papsu and it-has been urged that r. 31 does
not go beyond the rule making power conferred on
the State Government and is intra. vires the Act and
is not unconstitutional. We do not think it necessary to set out in detail the points raised in the reply of the State, as they will appear from the discu-
. ssion in the later part of this judgment. Suffice it
to say that the Sta.te has challenged all the grounds
raised on behalf of the petitioners in support of
their case that r. 31 is ultra vires the Act and uncon•
stitutional.
· In order to determine the question raised in
these petitions, it is necassa.ry to refer to the scheme
of Chapter IV-A of the Act and the implications of
exemption provided under s. 32 K( 1) (iv). Chitpter
IV-A is obviously a measure of land reform and is
intended to provide for equitable distribution of·
land and with that object s. 32 A provides for ceiling on Jarid holdings by an individual. The con1t·
itutionality of the Act, as we have already sa~d, has
1962
S!tiuliev Singh
"·
Tiie State of Punjat
Wan~ht• J,
1962
Shivtl1v Singh
I
v.
~The Slate of Puojob
i
I
!
Jt ar.choo .[.
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) .
not been challenged and therefore it must be held
that the provisions of Chap . IV-A when they provide
for ceiling on land and disposal of surplus land are
reasonable
restrictions on the right of persons
holding land. Seotion 32 K (1) however provides
that the provision asto ceiling oontained in s. 32-A
shall not apply to oertain type of lands and one of
those types is mentioned in cl. (iv) thereof (namely,
efficiently managed farms which consist of compaot
blocks on which heavy investment.! or permanent
structural improvements have been made and.whose
break-up is likely to lead to a fall in production).
Therefore, before any farm can claim that the ceiling
as contained in s.32-A shall not apply to it, it has to
comply with the conditions in cl. (iv). These conditions which may be deduced from cl. (iv) are :-· ·
( i) that the farm should be efficiently
managed;
(ii) that it should consist of compact
blocks;
(iii)
(iv)
that heavy investment or permanent
structural improvements must have
been made on the farm; and
the break up of the farm is likely to
lead to a fall in production.
·
Before therefore a person owning or holding
a farm can claim exemption from the ceiling provid
ed in s. 32 A he has to show that his farm complies
with all the four conditions mentioned above. In
particular, before a person owning or holding a farm
oan claim that s. 32 A should not be applied in his
case he must show that a break up of the farm is
likely to lead to a fall in production. It ·will thus.
be clear that the first three conditions under s. 32
K (1) (iv) are concerned with the efficiency of the
farm whioh has to be taken out of s. 32 A while the
fourth oondition is conoerned with the yield from
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
437
the farm.
Therefqre, whatever may have been the
view of the Sub:Committee of the Planning CommissiOn with respect , to yield as a criterion of good
husbandry, there is no doubt tha.t s. 32 K ( 1) (iv)
requires th it in considering whether the ceiling provideti in s. 32A shall he applied to it particular farm,
its yield must be taken into consideration and the
farm can only avoid its break up if the result of the
break up is likely to lead to a fall in production.
There can be no doubt therefore that in order that
a farm may get. the benefit Of s. 32K (I) (iv) it must
satisfy the four·conditions set out above.
The Act has provided by s. 32 p that the question whether a farm should get the benefit of s.32 K
(I); (iv) will be decided by the Commission, Subsection ( 4) of s. 32p lays down· that it will ha the
duty of the Commission, subject to the provisions
of the .Act and in accordance with the Rules which
may be made ~y the State Govbrmnent, ·to advise
the St!tte Government with regard to ~xemption of
lauds from the ceiling in . accordance with the provisions of s. 32K. Sub-section ( 5) provides that the
advice given by the Commission shall be binding
on the· State Government. Sub-section (4) itself
shows, in addition to the general power of the State
Government . to frame rules under s. 52 for carrying .
out the purposes of the .Act, that the State Government has the power to frame rules for the guMance
of the Commission in carrying out· its duties under
s. 32p (4} (c}.
Rufo 31 has obviously been framed
with that object. The ·petitioners however attack
the.marking system evolved under that rule on the
ground that this- is completely alien and foreign to
the .Act. We cannot agree with this contention.
It is true that the Commission would have to decide
whether a farm is entitled to .the benefit of s. 32K.
If Iio rules had been fr1.uned the matter would have
been left at iarge for determination. of the Commission to the best of its ability. It is true that the
'
1962
Shivd1v Sing!&
v.
.
The Stale if Pun/<11
w .. ncho.J.
1982
Shiritlev Sinfh
v.
17i1 State of Punjab
WanchoaJ.
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
Commission consists of a Chairman who is or has
been a Judge of the High Court and two members
to be nominated by the State Government having
special knowledge or pTactical experience of land
or agricultural problems, even so we do not think
that the Act did not contemplate framing of rules
which will give certain objective guidance to the
Commission in carrying out its duties. We do not
think that in evolving the marking system as provided in r. 31 the Commissions dieoretion has been
fettered and its independent judgment made illusory.
So long as the marking 1ystem takes into aocount
what is required under s. 32 K (l) (iv) in order to
claim exemption from ceiling it cannot be said that
the marking system that has been evolved is something beyond what was contemplated by the legislature. A perusal of Soh, B. tor. 31 shows that
items I to IX which deal with lay-out, cultivation
practices, sowing practices, manure practices, soil
conservation practices, development of irrigation
facilities, plant protection measures, keeping of.records and miscellaneous items (like quality of draught and milch animals and their maintenance,
arrangement for storage of produce, small orchards,
home poultry farm, apioulture, sareculture, participation in co-operative a1sociations, treatment
with labour eto.) are all meant to evaluate the first
three conditions ins. 32 K (1) (iv) as indicated by
us above. We have been pointed out only one item
in Soh. B under head "lay-out" which seems, to be
out of place and which carries 9 marks _out of 500
marke. That item is voluntary consolidation and
the criticism on behalf of the petitioners is that so
long as the
area is compact it is immaterial
how
that compactness has been ·achieved, whether voluntarily or otherwise. Barring
this item
all the
other items appear to carry out the
first three
conditions
mentioned by us above
· 3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
439
and therefore the Commission will have a 1tandared
when it considers the question of exemption of
farms.
It has full discretion to evaluate the
various features set out in Sch. B items I to IX
and has full power to give such marks as it thinks
fit.
I ca.nnot therefore be said that by providing
the marking system in Sch. B the rule has in any
way fettered the discretion and judgment of the Com•
mission, and affected its independence.
Further
item X in Sch. B is with respect to "yields" and
carries 500 marks out of a total of 1000 marks.
Thus the system behind Sch. B is that half the
total number of marks is provided for the firlilt
three conditions and the other half is provided for
the yields. We have already mentioned that the
fourth condition under s. 32 K (l)(iv) shows that
one of tl1e main qualifications for exemption from
ceiling under Iii. 32 K is that the production of the
farm should be such that its break-up shall lead to
a fall in production. In _the circumstances we do
not think that it can be aaid · that the allotment
of half the total number of marks to yields in .;ch.
B is in any manner contrary to the intention of the
legislature. We cannot therefore accept the contention of the petitioners that the marking system
which has been evolved in Soh. B is in any way forei ~n to the purposes of the Act or in any way fails to
carry out the object behind s. 32 K (l)(iv).
The
marking system only gives guidance to the Commision in the task assigned to it by s. 32 p (4}(c).
The attack on r. 31 on the ground that the marking
system evolved therein is foreign to the purpose of
s. 32 K (l)(iv), must fail.
The main attn.ck of the petitioners however
is. on ~ch. C.
This Sc~edule prescribes the average
yield m maunds of various crops for irrigated and
"
unirrigated lands for various districts and tehsils
?f the former States of Pepsu with which the Act
is concerned.
Rule 31 provides that in giving
1962
Shiudev Singh
•
v.
Ths Stale of_l'unjt>i
Wamhoo J,
'
-1
Shiridev Singh
••
The S~atl o.f Punjab
w~nehoo J.
440
SUPREM]ij COURT REPORTS (1963]
marks for yields the Commission shall apply the
standred yields given in Sch. C. '.I he first · con ten·
tion of the petitioners in this behalf is that the
standards of yield hav.e been fixed so high that they
are unattainable and this suggests that the intention
of the framers of Sch. C. was to make the yields
so high that no farm could reach that standard
with the result that the intention behind s. 32 K
(l )(iv) of exempting efficiently managed farms
should be defeated. In effect this contention is
a charge of'mala /ides against the State in framing
Sch. C with the object of nullifying the intention
of the legislature
contained in s. 32 K {I )(iv).
Schedule C contains i:3 crops, the yields of which
have been prescribed under two heads, namely,
(i) irrigated and (ii) unirrigated. Learned counesl
for the petitioners however, concentrated on_wheat
to ehow how the standard prescribed is so high and
arbitrary as to be unattainable and we shall thereforf') consider the case of wheat. It is however .
urged on behalf of the ·petitioners that practically
· the same arguments will apply to the other crops we
shall assume for present purposes that what applies
to wheat will also apply to other crops. The stan·
dard fixed for wheat for practically the entire area
of the former State of Pepsu (except Kandaghat
and Nalagarh, assessment circles Pahar) ·is thirty
months per acre for irrigated and 10 maunds for
unirrigated lands. It is said that this is an unattainable standard and therefore Sch. C has been·
framed with the idea of breaking up the efficiently
managed
farms
completly
in
spite·
of
the
intention
of the legislature otherwise,
In this contention reliance. has
been
placed
on certain produce figures for that area by either
side. Before however we consider those figures.
we may refer tor, 31 (2) whice divides the frams
into three cattigories according to _marking, We
she.II refer to this division la.ter in another con•
'
-.-! -(
..
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
441
nection; !;mt here it may be remarked that in
order that· an A class farm be deemed under
r. 31 (2) to be an efficiently managed farm that
requires only . 80 per ceutum of t.he total marks,
so that when we apply the yields fixed under
Sch.O we have to scale them down to 80 per
centum, for even if yields are at 80 per centum
the farm will be wholly entitled to exemption
under . r. 31 (2). Therefore,
though the yields
fixed is 30 maunds for · irrigated land ·and 10
mam;ids for
unirrigated
land . in theory, the
praotical effect of r. ~l (2) is that if a farm produces
24 . maunds per acre of . irrigated land and 8
maunds per acre of unirrigaied land, it will pass the
test
prescribed by s. 32K (I) (iv) we have
·therefore to compare this yield with the other
figures .. which have been brought to our notice by
either side, to decide whether the yield fixed
in Sch.C has been deliberately fixed so . high as
to be - unattainable with the object of mak~
ing the provision of s.
3~K (1) (iv) nugat_ory.
The burden of proving this and so establishing the
mala fiiles of the f?tate Government is on· the peti•
tioners.
·
Before we consider these figures we may dis·
pose of a. shor,t point as to the date on which valuation under s. 32 K wiU have to be made. Section
32 K came into force on October 30, 1956 and it is
obvious that · it is as on tha.t date that the Commission will have to decide whether a particular farm
complies with the requirements of s. 32 K (1) (iv)
and should therefore be exempted from the operation of the ceiling provided in e. 32A;
The
statistics that have been provided .to us however
are of a later period. We propose to consider them
but it willalways have to be kept in mind that the
decision of the Commission has to be on the facts
as they stood on October 30, 1956, so far as s. 32 K
_ (1) (iv) is concerned.
1962
Shivdev Sindh
v.
Thi State nf Punjab
Wancho1J,
-
J961
Shivdt'V Sin:h
v.
Th~ Stale o/ Punjai
Waru:ht11 J.
-
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
The Board of Economic Inquiry Punjab
(India) publishes every year a bulletin on "Farm
Accounts in the Punjab" and this shows that the
average yield in maunds for Punjab as a whole in
the year 1956·57 of wheat on irrigated land was
13.46 maunds per acre and on unirriga.ted land
10.68. The samfl figures for 1957 -58 were 14.57
and 10.99 and for 1958-59, 14.65 and 10.1. The
same figures of Central Zone, P1mjab area were
16.29 .and 3.67 for 1956-57; 12.27 and 5.53 for 195"7- ·
58 and 15.29 and 11.12 for 1958-59. Taking the
matter districtwise, the same figures were 15.95 and
B for Ludhaina District for 1956·57 and 15.83 and
6.15 in 1958-59. For Sangurur district which in
the former state of Pepsu the figures werel5.33 and
6.41 for the year 1958-59. These figures seem to
show that so far as the standard fixed in Sch.
C for unirrigated land is concerned it cannot be
said to be necessarily unattainable, for the standard
is 10 maunds which when reduced to 80 per centum
comes only to eiget maunds. As for the irrigated
area, the' standard is 30 maunds which when
reduced to 80 per centum comes to 24 maunds.
There is no doubt that the standard for the irrigated area is comparatively very much higher than
the averages in the bulletin mentioned above. In
reply however the State relies on certain yields
which are certainly very much higher.
Unfortuna·
tely, however, we cannot attach much value to
these yields for they were obtained in crop competitions and these yields were for irriga.ted lands
varying from over 32 maunds to over 66 ma.unds
per acre. One of the competitors who showed an
yield of over 44 maunds per acre has aworn an affidavit to show how these yields in crop competition
are arrived at. According to him, the area selected is the best one acre of land which is specially
prepared for
the purpose.
It is intensively
'
y \-
i
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
443
ploughed and abnormal doses of manure and fertlisers are put in it. The irrigation also is twice tile
normal irrigation. Further at the time of harvest·
ing only one Biswas of land is out. Out of this,
only one bundle of crop out is threshed and out of
the yield obtained from this bundle, the yield of
one acre is computed. Obviously, the yield obtained in such a competition is not of such value for
purposes of comparison.
But this however does
not dispose of the matter. It must be remembered
thats. 32 K (1) (iv) postulates that only those farms
would be exempted whos.e break-up would lead to
& fell in production.
rhis clearly implies that if
the farm in question is only producing what the
a.verage yield is in the whole of the Punjab its
break-up would certainly not lead to a fall in production:
Therefore, in order that a farm may
comply with the condition that it_s break-up would
result in a fall of production it is obvious that its
production must be higher than the average yield
for the whole of the Punjab. We have already
pointed out that so far as unirrigated land is concerned the fixing of the standard at 8 maunds per
acre does not appear to be too high in view of the
figures to be found in the bulletin published by the
Board of Economic Inquiry Punjab (India), even
though the figures relates to the period a.fter
October 30, 1956. Aato the irrigated area it seems
that the average production ha.a reached up to
about 16 maunds per acre. The standard fi:r:ed in
Sob. C is 30 maunds which when reduced to 80 per
centum comes to 24 maunda.
On the materials
that have been provided by either aide on this
record, we would hesitate to say that the standard
of 24 mauoda per aore for irrigated land of the best
quality would be t.oo high. Therefore, if the standard fixed in Sch. C is to be taken to apply to the
beat quality irrigated land and that standard is
reduced to 80 per oentum in view of r. 31 (2), we
19/ll
Shiod11 Singh
v.
Thi St.ate •I Pu.jab
Wanc111.J,
196B
ShitJd1v Singh
••
The State of Punjr.~
WanchovJ.
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963)
would . hesitate to say that Sch. C had fixed an un·
attainable standard and so was a mala fide exercise of powor to frame rules with the object of
defeating the intention of the lagislature contained
in s. 32 K ( l) (iv). We have already said that we
propose to t"Lke the figuriis supp lied to us with
.reference to wh1>at only and we shall assume, as the
learned counsel for the petitioners ask us to assume,
that. what is true about wheat would be equally
true about other crops. We would therefore hesi·
tate in the case of other produce also to say that
the yield are too high and unattainable, if they are
taken to be the yields fJom the best quality irriga·
ted land, in. one case and the best quality unirriga.-
ted land in the other. The contention therefore
that the Schedule has been framed mnla fide in the
sense mentioned above niust fa.ii, as the petitioners
· have failed to estiiblish that.
But this in our
opinion does not end the matter and we shall now
. proceed further to deal with other aspects which
have been urged before us.
Rule 31 ( 2) provides for the criterion for
deciding whether the . farm is efficiently managed
etc. ·and has created three classf'B of farms, namely
A, B and C, depending upon the marks awarded,
80 per c_entum or more in the case of class A, 60
per centum or more but below 80 per oentum for
class B, and below 60 per centum for class C. It
is forthu provided that an A class farm shall be
deemed to be efficiently managed while 50 per
centum of the area under a fa.rm of class B shall,
subject to the choice of the landowner be deemed
· to be efficiently managed but farm of class C shall
riot be considered efficiently managed .. Now the
contention on behalf of the petitioners is that this
division into three classes is beyond the purview
of · s. 32 K and
is
therefore ultra vires.
Seo-
, tion 32 K, as we have already indicated, lays down
t \-
y
'
,
. '
I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME UTR REPORTS
445
that provisions of s. 32A shall not apply to efficien•
tly managed farms etc. so that when the Comm is·
sion considers the question wh1:1ther a particular
farm is efficiently managed under s. 32 K it has
- only to decide one of two things: namely, whether
·the farm is efficiently managed etc. or is not efficiently managed .. If it is efficiently managed, the
provisions of s. 32 A shaH not apply to the entire
farm; if on the other hand, it is not efficiently
managed,. the provisions ·of s. 32 A will apply to
the entire farm. There is no scope in s. 32 K for
the creation of three classes of farms, as has been
done by cl. (2) of r. 31. In other words there is
no scope for the crea.tion of class B farms in the
rule on .the terms of s. 32 K. The rule therefore
insofar as it creates an intermediate clai!s of farms,
half the area of which is deemed to be efficiently·
managed
is clearly beyond the provisions of
s. 32 K (1) (iv). The creation of class B farms of
r. 31 (2) . being beyond the provisions of s. 32 K
must be held to be ultra vires that section. The
question then arises whether in· view of the creation of class B farms by r. 31 the whole of that
rule-must go.
·we are of opinion that the creation of class B farms is so integrated with the
whole of r. 31 that it would not be possible to
excise class B farms only from that rule and leave
the rest of the una:ff'ected. ·It is impossible to say
what the form of r. 31 would have been if the rulemaking authority thought it could not provide
for class B farms. We are therefore of opinion
that the whole of r. 31 along with Schedules B
and C must faH, as soon as it is held that the creation of class B farms under th.e rule is beyond t.he
rulemaking power. This is one ground on which
r. 31 must be struck down as ultra vires of the
provisions _of the Act, particularly s. 32 K.
Then comes r. 31 (3) which provides that
the classification . made under r. 31 (2) shall be
1961
Shivrlev Sin4h
v.
The State of l'unjab
Wane.loo J.
1961
Shlvd" gingh
••
The Stat1 vj PiJnia'fJ
Wanoku J,
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
revised by (}overnment annually in the months of
January and February. The attack on this provision is two-fold. In the first place, it is contended that r. 31 (3) leaves the revision of classifi,
cation of farms entirely to Government-at any
rate there is nothing in r, 31 to suggest that the
Government is bound to consult the Commission
before revising the classification of farms.
Secondly, it is urged that there is nothing in s. 32 K or
any other provisions of the Act to suggest that
once a farm is taken out of the provisions of
s. 32 A by the application of s. 32 K that exemption is open to revision thereafter. We are of
opinion that there is force in the second cont~ntion,
though not in the first. Section 32 p ( 4) and (5)
lay down that the State Government will be advised by the Commission with .regard to exemption
under s.