LAWS(SC)-1958-12-16

ATMA RAM AMIN CHAND JISUKH RAM S B S AMARSURJIT SINGH GANGA RAM GANGA SINGH JAGADISH MOTA BASTI BRIJ LAL GANPAT TH HARNATH SINGH MANI RAM SHRI HANUMAN PRASAD SANTA SINGH RAJA RAM LALA BALRAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On December 08, 1958
ATMA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution impugn the constitutionality of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (Punj X of 1953) (which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act), as amended by Act XI of 1955. The petitioners are land-owners of the lands affected by the provisions of the impugned Act. The State of Punjab and its officers, besides persons claiming benefits under the Act, are the respondents in these several petitions.

(2.) The impugned Act has a history which may shortly be set out. With a view to providing for the security of tenure to tenants, the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Ordinance IV of 1950, was promulgated with effect from 13th May 1950. That Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act XII of 1950, which came into force on 6th November 1950, on the date on which it was first published in the Punjab Government gazette. The Act prescribed a limit of one hundred standard acres of land (equivalent to two hundred ordinary acres) which could be held by a land-owner for his "self-cultivation"; and it was termed "permissible limit" - (S. 2 (3)). Any land-ower having land in excess of the "permissible limit," was authorized by S. 3 to select for "self-cultivation," land out of the entire area held by him in the State of Punjab, as land-owner, and reserve it for his own use to the extent of the "permissible limit." This "right of reservation" had to be exercised, first, in respect of land in his self cultivation; and if the extent of such land fell short of the "permissible limit," he could, under S. 4, make up the deficiency by ejecting tenants under him in respect of such lands as fell within his reserved area. Section 5 fixed the minimum period of tenancy as four years, subject to certain exceptions set out in S. 6. These were some of the salient features of the Act of 1950, which itself was amended by the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act (Punj. V of 1951), which came into force on 24-12-1951. By the amending Act, the "permissible limit" was reduced to 50 standard acres equivalent to 100 ordinary acres, and the minimum period of tenancy was raised to five years. It also made provisions for preferential right of pre-emption-(S.12A), and conferred a right of purchase on the tenant in respect of land in his possession - (S. 12B), subject to certain exceptions-(S. 12C). Another legislation in this series was the Prevention of Ejectment (Temporary Powers) Ordinance No. 1 of 1952, which came into force on 11-6-1952. Then, came the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (Punj. X of 1953), now impugned, which repealed the aforesaid Acts XII of 1950 and V of 1951. It came into force on 15-4-1953. This Act itself was amended by Act LVII of 1953 and Act XI of 1955. Though this Act has undergone subsequent amendments in 1957 and 1958,. we are not concerned with those amendments, because they came into existence after this Court was moved under Art. 32 of the Constitution. We are concerned with the state of the law as it stood after the amendment of 1955, aforesaid.

(3.) Before dealing with the grounds of attack urged against the impugned Act, it is convenient to set out, in a nut-shell, the salient provisions of the Act, which have given rise to the present controversy, and which give an idea of the scope and nature of the legislation now under examination. The Act has a short Preamble, namely, "to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters." The Act further reduces the "permissible area" (S. 2 (3) ) in relation to a landlord or a tenant, to 30 standard acres equivalent to 60 ordinary acres, thus, releasing a larger area for resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under the provisions of the Act. So to say, it creates a pool of "surplus area" (S. 2 (5-a)), meaning thereby the area other than the "reserved area" in excess of the "permissible area," as aforesaid. "Reserved area" means the area lawfully reserved by the landlord under the provisions of the two Acts aforesaid, which were repealed by the Act(S. 2 (4) ). The definition of a tenant under the Act, includes a sub-tenant and a self cultivating lessee - (S. 2 (6)). As already indicated, a tenant also may be liable to be ejected from any area which he holds in any capacity whatever in excess of the "permissible area." Section 10 - A authorizes the State Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, to utilize any "surplus area" for re-settlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under the provisions of S. 9 (i). But a tenant inducted on to such "surplus area," holds the land under the land-owner, who, thus, becomes entitled to receipt of rent from the tenant. Section 12 lays down the maximum rent payable by a tenant. Section 17 recognizes the rights of certain tenants to pre-empt sales or foreclosure of land. Section 18, which formed the subject-matter of the most vehement attack on behalf of the petitioners, confers upon the tenants of the description given in the several clauses of the Act, the right to purchase from the landowner the land held by them, subject to certain exceptions, and subject to the payment in a lump sum or in six monthly instalments not exceeding ten, of the purchase price to be determined in accordance with cls. (2) and (3) of S.18. Section 23 invalidates any decree or order of any court or authority, or a notice of ejectment, which is not consistent with the provisions of the Act. Thus, the Act seeks to limit the area which may be held by a land-owner for the purpose of self-cultivation, thereby releasing "surplus area" which may be utilized for the purpose of resettling ejected tenants, and affording an opportunity to the tenant to become the land-owner himself on payment of the purchase price which, if anything, would be less than the market value. It, thus, aims at creating what it calls a class of "small land-owners," meaning thereby, holders of land not exceeding the "permissible area"-(S. 2 (2) ). The utmost emphasis has been laid on self-cultivation which means "cultivation by a land-owner either personally or through his wife or children, or through such of his relations as may be prescribed, or under his supervision"(S. 2 (9) ).