PRITAM SINGH CHAHIL versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

PRll'AM SINGH CHAHIL

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

February I, 1967 [K. SueBA RAO, C.J., J. C. SHAH, J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER,JJ.)

Pt/ml Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, as amended by Act XV of 1956 and Act Ill of 1959, s. 32FF-CeUlng fixed on land under penoNd Cllltlvallon of lt:ndlwkhr-Transfers to cerlaJn re/aJioru to be ignored for purpose of ceiling-Such relalions enumerated by r. 2JA framed JUUkr the Act by Guvernmen1-Validity of s. 32FF-Whedter ruUen from excessive de/egatlon--Rlght under Art.. 31A, 2nd proviso, Coutltutl<NI of lntJia, whether affected.

The petitioner owned certain land in the ellltwbilc State of Pepsu. Afur August 21,, 1956 he transferred one half of the •aid land in favour of his wife. Aft.er this transfer the land remaining in the hands of the petitiooer was less than the ceiling of 30 standard acres prescribed by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agrieultural Lands Act, 1955 as ameodod by Act XV of 1956. However by s. 32FF introduced into the above Act by Act III of 1959 it was laid down that transfers of land after August 21, 1956 to certain relations (to be named by the State Government) were Dot to affect the rislit of the State Oovemmeot under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be eniitled but for such transfer or disposition. By r. 23A framed under the Act the State Guvcmment prescnbed the relations. Rely-ing UpM s, 32FF and r. 23A the Special Colll:ctor, Chandigarh illduded in the total area held by the petitioner the land transferred by him in favour of bis wife and served on him ,. draft statement holdin,g that cer-tain e><teot of hi• land was surplus area. The petitioner filed petition under Art. 32 of the' Constitution challenging the Special Collector's order and lbe validity of the Act,

It wu urged in support of the petition that : (i) By adding the land ttalllferred to certain relations to the land held by person UDder bis personal cultivation for the purpose of determining the celling and the aurplus area a. 32FF of the Act and r. 23 of the rules made thereunder contravened Art. 3 IA, 2nd proviso; (ii) The legislature without enumerat-ing the relations or indicating some principles for ascertaining the relations abdicated its legislative function and delegated it to the State Government to presc:n'be the relations and therefore s. 32FF was void; (iii) The rules &=."~ for fixing compensation for the land acquired were ullro vius they did not lake into account the current valUe of the cron-raised thereon; and the Stale therefore was interfering with the petitioner'> riglit lo the land, unsupp<.'rted by law.

HEID : (i) Section 32FP was enccted in order to prevent transfec of land to relations with view to evading the provisions of the 1956 Act which imposed ceiling on the land under the personal cultivalioo of the landholder. The Legislature certainly is competent to make such law. The validity of such provision may perhaps be questioned under certain circumstances on the ground that it is an unreasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. But that was not open to the petitioner as the amending Act giving retrospective operation relale' to an 'estate'. Therefore Art. 31A operates dS bar against raising any such

question. Section 32FF is therefore valid and as the land acquired in the preaent case was admittedly above the ceiling, the second proviso to Art. 31 had no application. [541 A-DJ

(ii) From the mere fact that the enumeration of relations for the purpose of s. 32FF is left to the State Government it cannot be &aid that the Legislature had abdicated its function. It has clearly· laid down the policy and on :be basis of that policy enumeration can easily be worked out. Tho expression 'relation' is comprehensive and has local significance. The relatives must be such as those in whose favour benami tn111.-ac1ions are usually entered into or those whose benefit is indirectly the benefit of the lrallsferor himself. It is such relations who are men boned lo r. 23A allhough tho mention of sisters has been omitted by mistake. [541 B-O]

(iii) The validity of the rules prescribed for fixing compensation could

not be decided by the Court for want of relevant materials qn the record. [S4S Hl

OiuOINAL JURISDICTION : Writ t>etition No. 110 of 1966.

Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for en-forcement of fundamental rights.

K. P. Bhandari and R. Gqpa/akrishnan, ·for the petitioner.

Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. I and 3.

R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

·SubbaRao, C.J, This is petition under Art. 32 oftheConsti-E tutioir of India for declaration that the provisions of Sections 32A, 320, 32E, 32FF and 32G of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agri-cultural Lahds Act, 1955, as amended by Act XV of 1956, herein-after called the Act, are illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and for declaration that the provisions of Rule 28 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, hereinafter called tbe Rules, are illegal and void, and for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from his land under the provi-sion& thereof.

The facts may b"e briefly stated : The petitioner owned land

measuring abo11t 284 bighas situated in village Narinderpura. In the year 1956 he transferred one half of the said land in favour of his wife Shrimati Charanjeei Kaur. Excluding the land so transferred, the· land remaining. in the hands of the petitioner is admit-tedly below the ceiling prescribed under the Act. On October 30, 1956; Act XV of 1956 was passed by the Legislature of the Patiala and East Punjab Union. It amended the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. By the amendment Chapter 4-A .H wa& added to the earlier Act and also ceiling was imposed on land under personal cultivation. The petitioner is admittedly in personal cultivation of his land, which, excluding that sold to his wife, is below the ceiling prescribed under the Act.

On January 14, 1959 the Punjab Legi~lature passed Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Amendment) Act, 1959, (Act III of 1959). Under the said amending Act, no transfer or other disposition of land effected after August 21, 1956, except in favour of persons mentioned thereunder, shall affect the right of the State Govern-ment under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be enti-tled but for such transfer or disposition. Relying upon that section and including in the total area held by the petitioner the land trans-ferred by him in favour of his wife, the Special Collector, Chandi-garh, on May 31, 1962, served draft statement on the petitioner holding that certain extent of land was surplus area. The peti-tioner, questioning the order of the Collector on various grounds, filed this petition for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.

The learned counsel for the petitioner raised before us the

following three points : (I) The provisions of ss. 32A, 320, 32E, 32FF, 32G and 32P of the Act are inconsistent with the second proviso to Art. 31A of the Constitution; (2) the provisions ofs. 32FF, read with r. 23A of the Rules, amount to delegation of legislative. power; and (3) the provisions of r. 28 of the Rules are inconsis-tent with the provisions of s. 32G of the Act and therefore Art. 31A is not bar against the enforcement of the petitioner's funda-mental right under Aru.. 19, 13(2) and 14 of the Constitution.

To appreciate the scope of the first question it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Acts and the Constitution. The second proviso to Art. 31-A of the Constitution reads:

"Provided that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and" where any land comprised therein is held by person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force . . . unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land . . . . . . provides for payment of compensation at rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof."

Section 3 of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 as amended by Act XV of 1956 provides :.

"Permissible limit for the purpose of this Act is thirty standard acres of land and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed eighty acres, such eighty acres :

Section 32-A provides :

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, custom, usage or agreement, no person shall be

no person shall be

entitled to own or hold as landowner or tenant land under his persona\ cultivation within ~he State which exceeds in the aggregate the permissible limits."

Section 32-E provides :

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV, after the date on which the final statement in respect of landowner. or tenant is published in the Official Gazette, then-

(a) in the case of the surplus area of the landowner . . . . . . . . which is not included within the permissible limits of the landowner, such area shall on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government be deemed to have been· acquired by the State Government for public pur-pose and all rights; title and interest, of all persons in such land shall be e11tinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from encum-D brances created by any person".

Section 32FF inserted by the Punjab Act III of 1955 reads as under :

"Save in the i;ase of land acquired by the State Govern-ment under any law for the time being in force or by an heir by inheritance held by small landowner not being relation as prescribed of the person making the transfer or disposi-tion of land, for consideration up to an area which with or without the area owned or held by him does not in aggre-gate exceed the. permissible limit, no transfer or other disposition of land effected after 21st August, 1956, shall affect the right of the State Government under this Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer or disposition".Rule 23A of Jhe Rules of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958 reads as under : "For the purposes of s. 32FF of the Act, the pres-cribed relations shall be the wife or husband, male or female descendants and the descendants of such female, father, mother, father's or mother's sister, brother and his descendants, mother's brother and his descendants, wife's brother and sister's husband." The gist of the said provisions may be stated thus: No person shall be entitled to own or hold as landowner or tenant land under his .personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit, that is, thirty standard acres. Any land in excess of the permissible limit

vests in the State. Under Act 111 of 1959, the Act was amended and for the purposes of ascertaining the surplus land, the land trans-ferred after August 21, 1956, in favour of the persons mentioned in r. 23A was added to his land and if the total thereof was above the permissible area, the surplus would vest in the State Govern-ment. To put it differently, the said transfer is ignored and the surplus area is ascertained. In the instant case if the transfer by the petitioner in favour of his wife is not ignored, the petitioner's land would be within the permissible area. But if ignored it would be above that area. Admittedly also under the provisions of the Act, compensation payable in respect of the surplus area is not its market value but that ascertained in the manner prescribed by the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Under the second proviso to Art. 3 IA of the Constitution, if the State acquires any portion of land which is within the ceiling limits, it shall pay compensation at rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that s. 3:2FF, inserted by Punjab Act Ill of 1959, whereunder land validly trans-ferred after August 21, 1956, is added to the transferor's land for the purposes of ascertaining the ceiling offends the second proviso to Art. 31A. It is argued that while under the said second proviso person is entitled to market value in respect of the land below the ceiling acquired from him, s. 32FF by fiction statutorily raises the ceiling. The answer to the question raised depends upon the constitutional validity of s. 32FF of the Act. It is not disputed that the Parliament can make an Act in respect of the matters within its purview either prospectively or retrospectively. It is well known legislative device to put an earlier date in order to prevent the evasion of an impending statute. It appears that on August 13, 1956, the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Second Amendment Bill, 1956 was published in Pepsu Gaz.ette Extra-ordinary fixing the permissible limits of landholder an.d introducing some provisions against the eviction of tenant in possession of lands above the said limits. The statement of objects and reasons reads thus :

"The necessity for introducing certain agrarian reforms particularly with view to protecting the tenants against eviction and fixing for allottees higher limit for reservation of land for personal cultivation was being felt for some time past. This bill seeks to achieve the object by amending the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955."

The proposal to introduce the said bill must have caused appre· hension in the minds of the landowners that they would lose the lands above the permissible area and naturally they must have transferred their lands in favour of their relatives. Section 32FF

-.;,,t,.

was added to frustrate such devices and to make the enforcement of the Act really effective. Under the said section such transfer made after August 21, 1956, shall not affect the rights of the State Government under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer. Between the transferor and the transferee the transfer would be good, but it would not be effective against the State Government. That_is to say for ascertaining the surplus area the land transferred would be included in the trans-feror's land. Out of the total extent, the land above the ceiling, that is the permissible limit, would be the surplus land. The Legislature certainly is competent to make such law. The validity of such provision may perhaps be questioned under certain circumstances on the ground that it is an unreasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. But that is not open to the petitioner as the amending Act giving retro-spective operation relates to an "estate". Therefore, Art. 31A operates as bar against raising any such question. We, therefore, hold that s. 32FF is valid and as the land a~quired is admittedly above the ceiling, the second proviso to Art. 31A has no applica-D tion.

The second point also has no merits. Under s. 32FF of the Act, transfers in favour of relations prescribed have to be ignored. The contention is that the Legislature without enumerating the relations or indicating some principles for ascertaining the relations abdicated its legislative function and delegated it to the State Government to prescribe the relations and, therefore, the said· section is void. From the mere fact that the enumeration of the relations is left to the State Government, we cannot say that the Legislature has abdicated its function. It has clearly laid down the policy and on the basis of that policy enumeration of the re-lations can easily be worked out. The expression 'relation' is comprehensive and has local significance. The relatives must be such as those in whose favour benami transactions are usually entered into, or those whose benefit is indirectly the benefit of the transferor himself. The fact that under r. 23A comparatively distant relations are mentioned but the sister is omitted, is relied upon to prove the indefiniteness of the policy laid down in the Act. But perusal of r. 23A shows that all relations are mentioned, but, by some mistake, sister is omitted. We, therefore, reject this contention.

The next argument covers wider field. It may be put thus. The Act provided for acquisition after paying compensation in the manner prescribed. But the Rules pr~scribing the fixation of compensation are ultra vires the Act and, therefore, they are not valid rules in that regard. Fixation of' compensation is an integral part of acquisition. There cannot be an acquisition under the Act without payment of compensation. With the result there

is no \'alid law enabling the State to acquire the hnds of the peti-tioner. The petitioner is not questioning the law of acquisition on the ground that it infringes the fundamental right under Art. 19, 14 or 31, but complains that the State is infringing his fundamental right under Art. 19 without any valid law to support its action. So stated there is considerable force in the argument. But the whole edifice would be brought down if the Rules prescribing the compensation are valid, for, in that event, the petitioner's funda-mental rights are infringed under the law of acquisition and by reason of Art. 31-A he cannot question the validity of the law on the ground that it infringes the three fundamental rights mentioned therein.At this stage the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the decision of this Court in The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiroja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga(') concludes the matter against the petitioner on the question raised by him may be noticed. In that case one of the contentions raised was that the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (XXX of 1950) and other Acts were ultra vires the Constitution for want of legisfative com-petency, as law made under Entry 36 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution should provide for compensation and as the Acts did not provide for compensation, they were void. This argument was built upon the contention that under Entry 36 of List II of the Seventh Schedule only law of acquisition could be made that the existence of public purpose and an obligation to pay compensation are the necessary concomittants of compulsory acquisition of private property, and that, therefore, the term "acqui: sition" must be construed as importing, by necessary implication, the two conditions aforesaid. This Court held that the expression "acquisition" in Entry 36 of List II did not take in the concept of compensation and, therefore, the Acts could not be said to be bad for want of legislative competence. Be that as it may, this judg-ment has no real bearing on the question raised before us. The point taken is quite different one. namely, the Legislature made law of acquisition providin!! fo, nxation of compensation in the manner prescribed and that the rules prescribing the said manner are ultra vires the statute, and therefore, the .State is interfering with the petitioner's right unsupported by law.

To appreciate the argument it will be necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Under s. 32-G of the Act, "where any land is acquired under s. 32E, there shall be paid compensation which shall be determined by the Collector or any other officer in the manner and in accord-ance with the principles hereinafter set out." One of the principles is that in respect of land other than banjar land for the first 25 standard acres of land the compensation payable is 12 times the

fair rent. Under the proviso the compensation in no case can be less than 90 times the land revenue (including the rates and cesses) payable for the land or two hundred rupees per acre, whichever is less. Under sub·s. (2) of s. 320, the Collector or the officer autho-rised by the State Government shall prepare compensation state-ment in the form and manner prescribed. Under r. 28 of the Rules the mode of determination of fair rent and classification of soils are given. The relevant provisions of the said rule on which such reliance is placed in support of the argument reads :

Rule 28. Determination of fair rent and classification of soils:-

(I) Fair rents shall be determined by the Com-mission for each assessment circle as recognised at the last Settlement.

(2) In determining fair rents, the Commission shall,-

(!) follow the principles laid down in rules 1 to 12 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1929, which shall be applicable mutatis mutandis and subject to the amendment that the average yield per acre of any crop given in the last Settlement Report shall be adopted; and

(2) take into account such other factors, not Qeing inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and these rules, as it may consider necessary.

(3) The Commission shall, as far as possible, adhere to the classification of soils as adopted at the last Settlement, and where it feels that owing to any circumstance which may have developed since the last Settlement, reclassification of soils in any area has become necessary, it shall; while reclassifying soils, keep in view the princi· pie that classification should be as simple as possible and be based on broad differences of fairly permanent character which affects in marked degree the' economic rental of the land."

~nder rr. I to 12 of the Land Revenue Assessment Rules, 1929, the following procedure is prescribed: An estimate of net assets shall be framed on the basis of rents in kind paid by tenants at will prevailing in the estate or group of estates under considera-tion. That estimate is made by taking into consideration the re· levant factors mentioned in sub-r. (2) of r. l, namely, (a) the average, " acreage of each crop on each class of land for which it is proposed to frame separate rates; (b) the average yield per acre

of each crop so grown for which rent is taken by division of pro-duce; (c) the average price obtainable by agriculturists for each of the crops referred to under clause {b); and (d) the actual share of the gross produce received by landowners in the case of crops which arc divided and the rent payable on zabti crops. The land is classified under different categories depending upon whether they are cultivated or uncultivated lands. The prices to be adopted in the estimate shall be the average of the prices which are likely to be obtained for their crops by the agriculturists during the coming settlement and other relevant considerations. In estimating the average yield of different crops on different classes of land in an estate or group of estates, the Revenue Officer shall be guided by the results of certain relevant factors mentioned in r. 5 of the Land Revenue Assessment Rules. After an estimate is made of the annual gross product of an estate or group of estates, an estimate shall be made of the annual value of the produce of the land-owner or of his net assets. This method by which the estimate of the money value of the net assets of an estate or group of estates shall be made is adopted for ascertaining the fair rent under the Act, subject to the modification that the average yield per acre of any .crop given in the last settlement report shall be adopted. It is said that the last Settlement in Pepsu area took place 50 years ago; that is to say, the average yield per acre fixed by the said last Settlement Report shall be substituted for r. 5 of the Land Revenue Assessment Rules, 1929. It is argued that if the average yield of each crop is taken not as it is now but as it was 50 years ago it is not possible to arrive at the fair rent under the Act, as there may be phenomenal raise in the yield of each crop durin.g this long period a11d, therefore, the rules providing for the estimate of fair rent on such artificial basis are ultra vires the statute. In estimating the net assets of an estate the aforesaid four factors will have to be taken into consideration, i.e., the class of land, the average acreage of each crop, the average )'ield per acre of each crop, the average price and the actual share of the land-owner. During these 50 years there may be changes in the fertility of the land, in the charac-ter of the land, in the average yield per acre and also in the price an<l in the actual share of the land-owner. So far as the price and the average acreage of each crop are concerned, the date of acquisi-tion is the determining factor under the rules. In regard to the fertility of the soil, the Commission is authorized under the rules ~ redassify the lands on the basis of broad differenc~ of fairly per-manent ch~racter which affect in marked degree the economic rental of the lands that is to say, if in the lasL Settlement it was baroni land, the Commission may say, having regard to the changed circumstances, that it is .mi/ah land or abi land. If land is differently classified. the yield taken for determining the fair rent will be that of the higher classified land. But as regards the yield from different categories of land, there is nothing on the record to

show why the rules accepted the average yield per acre or any crop given in the last Settlement Report. Though it is theoretically possible that, improvement in seeds and the use of chemical ferti-lisers may have increased the yield of particular crop per acre, there is nothing on record to show that in Pepsu there is any such abnormal increase in the yield per acre in respect of any parti-B cular crop, The fact that the average yield of the last Settlement Report is adopted prima facie indicates there has been no such increase in yield in respect of any particular crop. The petitioner does not say in his affidavit that there is any such increase. In sub-para (a) of para 18 of the petition he says ;

"In order to determine the fair rent, the average yield of the land in question should be adopted as the basis. It is submitted that the yield of the land is recorded at the conclusion of every crop in the Khasra Girdawari by the Village Patwari and the same is checked by the Assistant Collector." In sub-para (b) thereof he he adds : "That the provisions of rule 28 of the rules are inconsisteAt with the provisions of Section 31G of the Act. The provisioll's of rule 28 provide that the Com-mission shall adhere to the classification of the soil as adopted at the last Settlement. It is submitted that the last Settlement took pince in erstwhile Patiala State about 50 years back. The village Narinderpura was part of Patiala State at that time. The provisions of rule 28 accordingly run contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions of section 320 of the Act. The classi-fication of the land should be taken on the date the land is acquired under the Act."

In sub-para (b) thereof he he adds :

It will be seen from the said two sub-paragraphs of para 18 of the affidavit of the petitioner that his complaint is that the classifi-cation of the soil is that which obtained 50 years ago and that the yield can be ascertained from Khasra Girdawari. But there is no allegation that the yield of the land in respect of any crop per acre has so increased that it will be unreasonable to take the yield recorded in the last Settlement as the criterion for arriving at the fair-rent. So far as the classification is concerned, as we have pointed out earlier, r. 3 of the Rules enjoins the Commission to reclassify the lands, if owing to supervening circumstances there is change in the category of the land, On the record, as placed before us, without an allegation that there is an increase in the yield per acre in regard to particular crop, it is not possible for us to hold that the relevant rules are ultra vires the Act. It may be that in some other case where specific allegations are made in that regard and

established, the validity of the Rules may have to be con.;id~r~d. We, therefore, hold that on the facts placed before us 11e c~nnot hold that the Rules arc 11/tra 1·ires the Act. Jf so, it follows that the petitioner's land is being acquired under law of acquisition and that the petitioner is precluded, by reason of Art. 3IA of the Cons· titution. from questioning the validity of the Act or the Rules made thereunder on tlte ground that his fundamental right under Art. 19, 14 or 31 of the Constitution is infringed.

In this view, no other question arises for consideration.

In the result, the petition is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.

Petition dismi<sed.