# x959 I959 Sardar Gur1"ej Singh v. Sardar Partap Singh Kairon

- **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 909
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-03-12
- **Case number:** Civil Writ No. 170 of 1959
- **Bench:** S. R. Das, S. K. Das, A. K. Sarkar, K. SuBBA RAO, M. Hidayatullah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/x959-i959-sardar-gur1-ej-singh-v-sardar-partap-singh-kairon-1840
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

909
Election Petition-Appointment of Lambardar as polling and
counting agent-Whether amounts to corrupt practice-Lambardar,
if a village accountant-Representation of the People Act, r95r (43
of I95I), S. I2J (7)(f).
The respondent was declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Sarhali constituency. The appellant who
was one of the contesting candidates, filed an election petition
for a declaration that the election of the respondent was void
inter alia on the ·ground that he had appointed a number of
lambardars as his polling and counting agents and had thus
committed a corrupt practice mentioned in s. 123(7) of the
Representation of the People Act, 195r. The appellant contended
that lambardars were both revenue officers and village accountants within the meaning of cl. (f) of s. 123(7).
Held, that lambardars were not persons falling within cl. (f)
of s. 123(7) of the Act and a<;cordingly the respondent had not
committed any corrupt practice in appointing lambardars as his
polling and counting agents. Clause (£) of s. 123(7) referred to
revenue officers including village accountants such as patwaris,
lekhpals, karnams and the like but excluding other village officers.
The genus is the "revenue officers'', and the "including" and
"excluding" clauses connected by the conjunction "but" show
that the village accountants were included in the group of revenue
officers, but the other village officers were excluded therefrom.
Lambardars, being village revenue officers, were excluded from
the operation of cl. (f) of s. 123(7) of the Act.. Further, Iambardars were not village accountants and did not fall within the
inclusive part of cl. (f).
Raja Bahadur K. C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, 19 E.L.R.
I, distinguished.
C1vn, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appea.l No.
324 of l95!J.
Appeal by srwcial leave from the judgment and
order dated the l2Lh March, 195!), of the Punjab High
Court, in Civil Writ No. 170 of 1959.
N. 0. Chatterjee and Janardan Sharma, for the appellant.
115
x959
I959
Sardar Gur1"ej
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh Kairon
Subba Rao j.
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
G. 8. Pathak, H. 8. Doabia, Additional AdvocateGeneral, for the State of Punjab, Gopal Singh and P. 8.
Safeer, for the respondent.
1959. September 30. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SUBBA RAO J.-This appeal by special leave raises
the question of true construction of the provisions of
s. 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The material
facts may be briefly stated : Sardar Gurmej Singh,
the appellant, Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, the
present Chief Minister of the State of Punjab and
respondent herein, and others were the contesting
candidates in the general election held in ·February
1957, from the Sarhali constituency. The respondent
secured the highest number of votes and was duly
declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
On April II, 1957, the appellant filed an election
petition (Election Petition No. 22 of 1957)
for
the declaration that the election of the respondent
was void under s. 100 of the·Act. It was, inter alia,
alleged by him that the respondent and his election
agent had appointed a number of persons as the respondent's counting and polling agents at different
centres and that the said persons were, at the material
time, working as lambardars, and, therefore, the respondent was guilty of corrupt practice within the
ll\llaning of s. 123 of the Act. The respondent denied
the material allegations made in the petition. On the
pleadings as many as 12 issues were framed, and
issues 3 a!ld 8 were taken up for trial as preliminary
issues.
Issue 8, which is the only relevant issue for
the present enquiry, reads;
" Is Lam bardar 8. person in the service of Government or is it covered by any of the clauses of
section 123(7) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 ? "
The Election Tribunal held against the respondent on
both the preliminary issues. On issue 8 it h

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SARDAR GURMEJ SINGH
'II.
SARDAR PARTAP SINGH KAIRON
(S. R. DAS, C.J., S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR,
K. SuBBA RAO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)
909
Election Petition-Appointment of Lambardar as polling and
counting agent-Whether amounts to corrupt practice-Lambardar,
if a village accountant-Representation of the People Act, r95r (43
of I95I), S. I2J (7)(f).
The respondent was declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Sarhali constituency. The appellant who
was one of the contesting candidates, filed an election petition
for a declaration that the election of the respondent was void
inter alia on the ·ground that he had appointed a number of
lambardars as his polling and counting agents and had thus
committed a corrupt practice mentioned in s. 123(7) of the
Representation of the People Act, 195r. The appellant contended
that lambardars were both revenue officers and village accountants within the meaning of cl. (f) of s. 123(7).
Held, that lambardars were not persons falling within cl. (f)
of s. 123(7) of the Act and a<;cordingly the respondent had not
committed any corrupt practice in appointing lambardars as his
polling and counting agents. Clause (£) of s. 123(7) referred to
revenue officers including village accountants such as patwaris,
lekhpals, karnams and the like but excluding other village officers.
The genus is the "revenue officers'', and the "including" and
"excluding" clauses connected by the conjunction "but" show
that the village accountants were included in the group of revenue
officers, but the other village officers were excluded therefrom.
Lambardars, being village revenue officers, were excluded from
the operation of cl. (f) of s. 123(7) of the Act.. Further, Iambardars were not village accountants and did not fall within the
inclusive part of cl. (f).
Raja Bahadur K. C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra, 19 E.L.R.
I, distinguished.
C1vn, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appea.l No.
324 of l95!J.
Appeal by srwcial leave from the judgment and
order dated the l2Lh March, 195!), of the Punjab High
Court, in Civil Writ No. 170 of 1959.
N. 0. Chatterjee and Janardan Sharma, for the appellant.
115
x959
I959
Sardar Gur1"ej
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh Kairon
Subba Rao j.
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
G. 8. Pathak, H. 8. Doabia, Additional AdvocateGeneral, for the State of Punjab, Gopal Singh and P. 8.
Safeer, for the respondent.
1959. September 30. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SUBBA RAO J.-This appeal by special leave raises
the question of true construction of the provisions of
s. 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The material
facts may be briefly stated : Sardar Gurmej Singh,
the appellant, Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, the
present Chief Minister of the State of Punjab and
respondent herein, and others were the contesting
candidates in the general election held in ·February
1957, from the Sarhali constituency. The respondent
secured the highest number of votes and was duly
declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
On April II, 1957, the appellant filed an election
petition (Election Petition No. 22 of 1957)
for
the declaration that the election of the respondent
was void under s. 100 of the·Act. It was, inter alia,
alleged by him that the respondent and his election
agent had appointed a number of persons as the respondent's counting and polling agents at different
centres and that the said persons were, at the material
time, working as lambardars, and, therefore, the respondent was guilty of corrupt practice within the
ll\llaning of s. 123 of the Act. The respondent denied
the material allegations made in the petition. On the
pleadings as many as 12 issues were framed, and
issues 3 a!ld 8 were taken up for trial as preliminary
issues.
Issue 8, which is the only relevant issue for
the present enquiry, reads;
" Is Lam bardar 8. person in the service of Government or is it covered by any of the clauses of
section 123(7) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 ? "
The Election Tribunal held against the respondent on
both the preliminary issues. On issue 8 it held that a.
lambardar was a revenue officer and village accountant in the service of Government within the meaning
of cl. (f) of sub-s. (7) of s. 123 of the Act. On the ha.sis
....
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
911
of the findings on the preliminary issues, the Tribunal
directed that the remaining issues be set down for
hearing. The respondent canvassed the correctness of
that order by filing a petition in the High Court of
Punjab at Chandigarh under Arts. 226 and 227 of the
Constitution.
The petition was heard by a Division
Bench of the Punjab High Court, consisting of F'alshaw
and Mehar Singh, JJ. The learned Judges by their
order, dated March 12, 1959, confirmed the order of
th() Election Tribunal on issue 3, but set aside its
order on issue· 8.
The learned Judges held that
" Lambardars are undoubtedly a class of revenue officers appointed by the Government for the purpose of
collecting the land revenue and receiving a statutory
percentage on the sums realised by them as their
remuneration for so doing, but whereas they were included along with village accountants, who are called
Patwaris in this State and by other names set out in
the section in other parts of India, they are clearly
excluded by the provisions of clause (f)." Though the
scope of this finding was subject to some controversy,
it is clear that the learned Judges intended to hold
that, though a lambardar was disqualified under the
corresponding sub-s. (8) of s. 123 of the Act before it
was amended in 1956, he was excluded from the operation of that section by cl. (f) of sub-s. (7) of the
amended section. On the basis of that finding, the
High Court set aside the decision of the Tribunal on
issue 8 and confirmed the same in other respects. The
appellant filed the present appeal by obtaining the
special leave of this Court.
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the
appellant, contends that a lambardar is both a
revenue officer and village accountant within the
meaning of cl. (f) of sub-s. (7) of s. 123 of the Act, and
therefore, the respondent in engaging the lambardars
as his counting and polling agents for different centres
in his constituency, was guilty of a corrupt practice.
On the other hand, Mr. Pathak, the learned Counsel
for the respondent, contends that a lambardar is
neither a revenue officer nor a village accountant
within the meaning of the said clause.
I959
Sardar Gurmej
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh KairO'll
Subba Rao J
I959
Sardar Gurmej
S1ngh
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh Kairon
Subba Rao].
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(l)j
The question raised turns upon the relevant provisions of s. 123 of the Act. The said section reads:
S.123. Corrupt practices.-The following shall be
deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of
this Act:-
*
•
•
(7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting to
obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by
any other person, any assistance (other than the
giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects
of the candidate's election, from any person in the
service of the Government and belonging to any of
the following classes, namely :
•
•
•
(f) revenue officers including village accountants,
such as, patwaris, lekhpals, talati•, karnams and the
like but excluding other village officers.
Explanation- (1) In this section the expression
"agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent
and any person who is held to have acted as an
agent in connection with the election with the
consent of the candidate.
(2) For the purposes of clause (7), a person shall
be deemed to assist in the furthera~ce of the prospects of a candidate's election if he acts as an election
agent, or a polling agent, or a counting agent of
that candidate.
Under this section, so far as it is material to the
present enquiry, a candidate cannot appoint a person
as his election agent if such person is in the service of
Government and is one of the officers governed by
d. (f) of sub-s. (7). A lambardar to be a disqualified officer
should not only be in the service of Government but
should be revenue officer within the meaning of cl (f)
c;if sub-s. (7) of s. 123 of the Act. If he was not one. of
the revenue officers within the meaning of cl. (f) of
the said sub.section, ·the. question whether he was in
the service of Government would not arise for consideration.
We shall, therefore, proceed to consider
whether a lambardar is one of the officers covered by
cl. (f) of sub-s. (7) of s. 123 of the Act.
-!
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
913
Clause (f) of sub-s. (7) of s. 123 of the Act mentions
three categories of officers, namely, (i) revenue officers;
(ii) village acountants; and (iii) other village officers.
Who are the officers that the fall under each of these
categories ?
(i) Revenue Officers:
Revenue
officers
are
a
well-known class
of officers who are entrusted
with the revenue administration of the various
States
though there
are
some
variations
in
regard to nomenclatures ·and designations given to them
from State to State. They ccmsist of an hierarchy
with the Revenue Board or a Commissioner at the
apex and the village officers at the bottom. BadenPowell in his book "Land-Systems of British India,"
Vol. I, describes generally the machinery of the British
land administration at p. 323.
He points· out the
different officers that are in charge of the revenue
administration in the various States at the State,
district, taluk and village levels. He allots different
chapters for various States and describes minutely the
the various limbs of the revenue administration in
each of the States. Coming to the Punjab State, he
describes the revenue officers with the following designations: Financial Commissioner, Director of LandRecords and Agriculture, the Commissioner, the
Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Subordinate Officers,
Tahsil Officers and Village Officers. The same pattern
with slight variations prevails in the other States. It
may, therefore, be held without contradiction that a
revenue officer is one who is employed in the business
of revenue, and the term is comprehensive enough to
to take in all such revenue officers in the chain of
hierarchy in the revenue administ ation of the State.
It is not necessary in this case to express our opinion
on the question whether the officers in the service of
a State or the Union, who are not in charge of land
revenue but are connected with other sources of
revenue such as customs, income-tax or the like, fall
within the category of'"' revenue officers."
(ii) Village Accountants: The second group
of
officers in cl. (f) of sub-s. (7) of s. 123 of the Act are the
village accountants, such a.s, pa.twa.ris, lekhpa.ls, talatis
z959
Sardar Gurmej
Singh
v.
Sa•dar Partap
S•nt:h Kairon
Subba Rao].
'959
Sardar Gurmej
S1ngh
v.
$ardor Partap
Singh I<airon
Subba Rao].
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
karnams and the like. A careful study of the functions of the enumerated officers discloses that they are
only local equivalents of a patwari. Clause (f) itself
supplies the dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the
words " village accountants. " The phrase " such as "
immediately following the words "village accountants," and the phrase " the like " following the
enumerated officers indicate that the· examples are
intended to provide a definition -by illustration. To
put it differently, the enumerated categories of officers
and the like indicate precisely the content and connotation of the words "village accountants."
(iii) Other Village Officers: Other village officers are
obviously village officers other than the village accountants. The point to be emphasized is that unlike in
the case of revenue officers, who include officers whose
jurisdiction is not confined to the respective villages
alone, this category of officers are confined to those
exercising jurisdiction within a village.
It is an elementary rule that construction of a section is to be made of all the parts together and not of
one part only by itself, and that phrases are to be
construed according to the rules of grammar. So construed the meaning of the clause is fairly clear. The
genus is the "revenue officer," and the "including"
and "excluding" clauses connected by the conjunction
"but" show that the village accountants are included
in the group of revenue officers, but the other village
officers are excluded therefrom. If X includes A but
excludes B, it may simply mean that X takes in A but
ejects B. It is not necessary in this case to consider
whether the inclusive definition enlarges the meaning
of the words "revenue officers", or makes them explicit
and clear, viz., that the enumerated officers are within
the fold of "revenue officers"; for in either construction
the village accountants would be revenue officers. But
we cannot accept the argument that what is excluded
was not part of that from which it is excluded, and
that lambardars were not revenue
officers and
yet had to be excluded by way of abundant caution.
If so, it follows that the village officers, who included
lambardars, were excluded from the group of revenue
i
~-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
915
officers, with the result that they a.re freed from the
disqualification imposed by the provisions of the 11aid
clause.
But it is said that this construction would make
the words " revenue officers" and the words " excluding other village officers" unnecessary, for, the same
result could be achieved by enacting simply " village
accountants, such as,
patwaris, lekhpals, talatis,
karnams and the like".
This argument, if we may
say so, overlooks the difference between the terms
" revenue officers " and " village officers ". " Revenue
officers", as we have pointed out, is a more compre~
hensive term and takes in all officers who are employed in the revenue business, whereas the jurisdiction
of the village officers is uonfined to their respective
villages. Village officers do not exhaust the content
of revenue officers, and even after their exclusion
there will be many revenue officers at higher levels
who would be governed by cl. (f).
If this be the'
construction, every word used in the clause is given a
meaning and no words become a surplusage.
Now let us test the correctness of the other two
interpretations of the section suggested by the learned
Counsel for the appellant. Firstly, it is argued that
the words " village officers " a.re used in abundant
caution in view ef the long list of officers enumerated
in the· earlier Act, lest the public might interpret the
word " like" in such a way as to take in all the village
officers who are not revenue officers.
To accept this
argument is to impute to the Legislature want of precision.
The words "revenue officers", in whatever
sense they a.re used, cannot obviously comprehend
officers who are not revenue officers, and in that situation there is no necessity to exclude such officers from
the group of revenue officers. The Legislative device
of exclusion is adopted only to exclude a part from
the whole, which, but for the exclusion, continues to be
pa.rt of it. This interpretation must be rejected as it
involves the recognition of words which are surplusage.
Nor has the alternative construction any higher
merits. The genus, .the argument proceeds, is the
village accountants, ·and the exclusion is from the
I959
Sardar Gurmej
Sin1h
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh Kairon
Subba Rao f.
r959
Sarder Gurmej
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap .
Singh Kairon
Subba Rao].
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
category of village accountants only. This construction suffers from two defects. Firstly, the village officers
cannot be the species carved out of the genus " village
accountants", for the words" village officers" have a
wider connotation than the words "village accountants". To accept this interpretation is to read "village
accountants" as "village officers". Secondly, if th£
words were so substituted, both the groups of words
" village officers" and " other village officers" become
surplusage, as the same result can be achived by enacting simply " revenue officers including the enumerated
officers; for according to the learned Counsel, the
object of the inclfisive clause is only to bring in the
enumerated officers. This interpretation also deserves
to be rejected for the reason that its acceptance
involves the re-writing of the cla.use and the recognition of the unnecessary words therein. It also involves
excluding something from a category which ex hypothea'i.
does not include it; the exclusion in that view is
wholly redundant.
Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the
decision of this. Court in Raja Bahadur K. G. Deo
Bhanj v. Raghunatha Mi.•ra ('), and contended that
this Court has accepted the interpretation which he
seeks to put on cl. (f). The question raised in that
case was whether the sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat
constituted under the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act,
1948, was a person in the service of.the Government
of the State of Orissa. The Court held that sarpanch
was not a person in the service of the Government
within the meaning of s. 123(7)(f) of the Act. That
conclusion was enough to dispose of the appeal but
the Court considered also the alternative argument
that PVen if sarpanch was a person in the service of
the Government he was not one of the officers covered
by cl. (f) of the said sub-section. It was held that
sarpanch was neither a revenue officer nor a village
accountant within the meaning of the said clause. But
in the course of the judgment certain observations
were made in regard to the construction of the said
clause on which reliance is placed by the learned
(1) 19 E.L.R. 1.
/
...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
917
Counsel for the a.ppellant. The relevant observations
are found at p. 596, and they are as follows :
"Clause (f), in the first instance, speaks of a person
\n the service of the Goverument who is a revenue
officer and then further extends the class to village
accountanti;i. The wor?s "such as patwaris, lekhphals, talatis, karnams and the like " are merely
descriptive of the words "Revenue officers including
village accountants". Under cl. (f) it is essential
that a person in the service of the Government must
be a revem~e officer or a village accountant, by
whatever name such officer or village accountant
may be described. The exclusion of every other
village officer from the provisions of cl. (f) compels
the conclusion that before this clause can apply to
a Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat under the
Orissa Act it must be proved that he is either a
revenue officer or a village accountant."
It is contended that the said observations show that
this Court interpreted the terms of cl. (f) in a manner
different from that we have indicated. While we have
held that the words '!such as etc ... " and "the like"
are only descriptive of village accountants, the observations extracted above seem to suggest that the said
words are descriptive of the composite expression
" revenue officers including village accountants ". Even
in that view, we do not think that that excluding
clause refers to village accountants only and not to
revenue officers. The learned Judges were concerned
with a. sarpa.nch, and they held that he was not a.
village officer. If he was not a village officer, he was
not excluded from the category of revenue officers in
the cla.use, and, therefore, the said clause would apply
tO him if he was a revenue officer or a village accountant. Therefore, when the learned Judges said tha;t it
must be proved that sarpanch was a revenue officer or
a village accountant before the clause could be applied
tO him they must have used the words "revenue
officers " in the sense of revenue officers within the
meaning of that clause, namely, revenue officers
excluding other village officers. That decision did not
really proceed on an interpretation of the excluding
u6
Z9$9
Sardar Gvrnuj
Singh
v.
Sardar Parlap
Singh Kairon
Subba Rao J.
z959
Sardar Gurmej
Singh
v.
Sard(o· Partap
Singh f(airofl
Subba Rao J.
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
clause, but proceeded on the footing that the sarpanch
of that case was firstly not in the service of Government and secondly not a revenue officer within the
meaning of the Act, because he did not perfQl'm
revenue functions; nor was he a village accountant.
]'or the reasons mentioned, we hold, accepting the
plain meaning of the words used in the section that
lambardars, being village revenue officers, are excluded
from the operation of cl. (f) of sub-s. (7) of s. 123 of
the Act.
This leads us to the consideration of the question
whether a lambardar is a village accountant within
the meaning of the said clause.
The history of the village administration of our
country from the earli<'st times shows a clear demarcation of status and functions between a headman and
a patwari, known by different names in different parts
of our country. So far as the State of Punjab is concerned, it is common case that a village headman has
all along been described as a lambardar. BadenPowell in his book " Land-Systems of British India",
Vol. I, describes a village headman thus, at p. 21 :
"Again, I may well use the English term Headman to indicate the person who in some forms of
village tenure is an essential part of the community,
-an hereditary officer of some consideration. Even
where such a person is not essential to the social
constitution of the Yil!age, the Government has
generally appointed or recognized a headman in
some form or other, because it is more convenient
to deal with one man aud make him the medium of
communication and the representative."
Speaking of a. patwa.ri, the learned author says, a.t
p. 22:
" Another very common Indian revenue term is
Patwa.ri, meaning the person who keeps the village
accounts, and above a.II, lopks after the ma. ps and
records of rights, and registers changes in land
proprietorship and in tenancies. Some books call
him ' village accountant,' others ' village registrar';
but neither term is satisfactory. Synonymous with
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
919
Patwari (in Northern India and the Central Provinces) is the name 'Karnam' in the South, and
'Kulkarni' in the West."
In Vol. II of the said book, the learned author again
describes a lambardar and a patwari in Punjab in the
following terms, at p. 740:
"In the Punjab, the headman is styled 'lambardar '. As many, if not most, villages have several
sections, there are usually several ' lambardars ',
and thus the advantage of representation of many
co-sharers by one man is to some extent lost. It is
thought necessary, therefore, to have as agent for a
number of representatives, a single chief headman,
with whom it is easier to communicate, and who
can be held responsible."
Dealing with pa.twaris, the learned author says at
p. 733:
" This official is of the utmost importance to the
system. On his being duly trained and being competent carefully to prepare the village records and
statistics, really depends (in the last resort) the hope
of diminishing the labour and trouble to the people
which the recurrence of Settlement proceedings
occasions."
The learned author mentions the other duties of the
patwaris at p. 735. The most important of the duties
of a patwari is the preparing and keeping up of the
Annual Land-Records. Historically, therefore, there
is a clear demarcation between the status and the
functions of these two categories of officers.
The same pattern was followed in Punjab. The
Punjab Land Administration Manual, compiled. by
Sir James McC. Douie, considered to be a standard
book on the subject, describes in detail the nature and
the respective duties of a village headman and a.
patwari. Chapter VIII deals with the duties of a.
village headman. A village headman has duties to
the Government and to the land-owners and tenants
of the estates in their relations with the State. His
duties to the Government a.re a.s follows :
A. 1. To collect and pay into the treasury the land
revenue and a.11 sums recoverable as land revenue.
I959
Sardar Gurmej
sin ch
v.
Sardar Partap
Si1'gh K airo,.
Subba Rao).
r959
Sarda1 Gurmej
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh Koirtm
Subbo Rao].
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
2. To report to the tahsildar-
(a) the deaths of assignees and pensioners, and
their absence for over a year;
(b) encroachments on, or injury to, Government
property.
3. To aid-
(a) in carrying out harvest inspections, surveys,
the record of mutatione and other revenue
business;
(b) in providing, on payment, supplies or means
of transport for troops and officers of
Government.
B. Duties to landowners and tenants of estate :
I. To acknowledge every payment received from
them in their parcha books.
2. To collect and manage the common village
fund (malba), and account to the shareholders for
all receipts and expenditure.-(since 1953 the lambardar has been relieved of this duty, as, at present,
there are no common lands.)
One of the other chief duties of a headman is to aid in
the prevention and detection of crime.
The duties of a patwari are given in Chapter VII of
the said Manual. His three chief duties are :
(I) The maintenance of a record of the crops
grown at every harvest ;
(2) the keeping of the record of rights up to date
by the punctual record of mutations ; and
(3) the accurate preparation of statistical retu.rns
embodying the information derived from the harvest
inspections, register of mutations, and record of
rights.
Chapter XI of the said Manual describes the particulars of the registers kept by a patwari. They are :
(1) Area statement or milan rakbh.
(2) Kharif crop statement or jinswar.
(3) Rabi crop statement or jinswar.
(4) Revenue account or jama wasil baki.
(5) Statement of transfers of rights of owners and
occupancy tenants.
•
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COUH.T REPORTS
921
(5-A) Statement of sales and mortgages of owership of classes of land.
(6) Statement of ownership, mortgages and revenue
assignments.
(7) Statements of cultivating occupancy.
(8) Statement of rent paid by tenants-at will.
(9) Statement of agricultural stock.
For better particulars of the respective duties of a
village headman and a 11atwari, the provisons of the
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act XVII of 1887).
and the Rules made thereunder, particularly r. 20
thereof, and Chapter III of the Punjab Land Records
Manual may conveniently be referred to.
A comparative study of the respective duties of a
village headman and a patwari brings out the distinction between the two, namely, that the former is not
only an agent of the State in the village but also the
recognized xepresentative of the village, and the latter
is a comparatively minor officer entrusted with the
duty of maintaining the accounts and other relevant
records pertaining to the revenue business.
With this background the Parliament passed s. 123
of the Act. Originally s. 123(8), which corresponded
to s. 123(7) of the Act, read as follows;
"123. Major corrupt practices.-The following
shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act ,-
*
*
•
(8) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or
attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or
his agent or, by any other person with the connivance of a candidate or his agent, any assistance for
the furtherance of the prospects of the candidate's
election from any person serving under the Government of India or the Government of any State other
than the giving of vote by such person.
Explanation : For the purposes of this clause-
(a) a person serving under the Government of
India shall not include any person who has been
declared by the Central Goverument to be a person to
whom the provisions of this clause shall not apply;
r959
Sardar Gurmej
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap
Siwgh Kairon
Subba Rao].
I959
Sardar Gurn1ej
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh Kairon
Subba Rao].
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
(b) a person serving under the Government of
any State shall include a patwari, chaukidar, dafedar,
zaildar, shanbagh, karnam, talati, talari, pa.ti!,
village munsif, village headman or any other village
officer, by whatever name he is called, employed in
that State, whether the office he holds is a wholetime officer or not, but shall not include any person
(other than any such village officer as aforesaid)who
has been declared by the State Government to be a
person to whom the provisions of this clause shall
not apply."
Under this section, obtaining assistance from any
person serving nuder the Government was a corrupt
practice, and all the village officers were, by inclusive
definition, declared to be persons serving under the
(fovernment. The list of village officers given in the
i;ection includl'd a patwari and similar officers and also
a village headman and similar officers. For reasons
best known to the Parliament, that section was amended in 1956. Section 123(7)(f) as amended in 1956 has
already been extracted. Under this clause, village
officers other than village accountants such as patwaris etc., were excluded from the definition of revenue
officers. When Parliament, with the knowledge of the
clear distinction between the two categories of officers,
expressly included the one within the definition of
revenue officers and excluded the other village officers
from it, it would be unreasonable to construe the clause
in such a way as to include the village headman in
the category of village accountants. It would be doing
violence to the language used in the clause; for, the
words "village accountants", as defined in the clause,
have acquired a secondary meaning by convention and
statute.
It is said that there cannot be any logical basis for
disqualifying a patwari and qualifying a headman in
the matter of elections, for, the argument proceeds, a
headman has greater influence on the electorate than a
patwari. This Court is not concerned with the policy
underlying the statute, but only with the expressed
intention of the Parliament. Clause (f) of sub-s. (7) of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
923
s. 123 was amended by Act LVIII of 1958, and the
amended clause runs as follows :
8. 123(7). (f): revenue officers, other than village
revenue officers known as lambardars, malgujars,
patels, d0shmukhs, or by any other name, whose
duty is to coEect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount
of land revenue collected by them btlt who do not
discharge any police functions;
Under the amended clause, lambardars are apparently
excluded from the definition of "revenue officers."
We are referring to this latest amendment not as a
help to the construction of the clause, but to meet the
argument that there could not have been any policy
underlying the distinction between the said two categories of village officers. The fact that Parliament in
its latest amendment has prima facie sustained the
distinction may be an indication that in its view there
is relevant difference between a lambardar and village
accountants.
We would therefore, hold that a village
headman cannot be brought within the words "the
like" in the said clause.
In this view, it is not necessary to express our
opinion on the question whether a lambardar is a person in the service of the Government within the
meaning of s. 123(7) of the Act.
Before parting with this case, we must express our
feeling that the final disposal of the election petition
should not have been delayed so long. The elections
were held on February 24, 1957, the respondent was
declared elected on February 25, 1957, and the election.
petition was filed on April l l, 1957. Though 2! years
have elapsed, the petition has not yet been finally disposed of. We hope that the election petition would be
disposed of on other issues as expeditiously as possible.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs.
Appeal dismissed.
z959
Sardar Gurmdj
Singh
v.
Sardar Partap
Singh Kairon
St<bba Rao J.