PRITAM SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these seven appeals Nos. LPA. 323 to 329 of 1969 filed under clause X of the Letters Patent against the order of Tuli, J., the only question that has been agitated for decision is whether certain transfers of land made on 16.6.1956 in favour of Jaswinder Kaur and Rajinder Kaur, appellant Nos. 6 and 7 by their parents, appellant Nos. 1 and 2, and brothers, appellant Nos. 3 to 5, could be ignored by the Revenue authorities for the purpose of determining the appellants reserved areas under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act'). The determination of these reserved areas was necessary for disposing of some applications made by the tenants in possession of the land for acquisition of proprietary rights under Section 22 of the Act. These tenants have been impleaded as respondents in the respective writ petitions.

(2.) Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 jointly owned a half share in this holding and they reserved certain areas in 1954 under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 (President Act No. 8 of 1953). This Act was repealed and re-enacted by the Act of 1955. There is no dispute with regard to these reservations. It was, however, reported to the Patwari by the appellants on 16th June, 1956 that appellant Nos. 1 to 5 had transferred 107 Bighas 12 biswas Pukhta of land in favour of appellant Nos. 6 and 7 as a provision for their dowry. An entry in the Register of Mutations was made by the Patwari the same day and a mutation order was duly attested by the Revenue Officer on 15.10.1956. Thereafter, all the appellants made fresh reservations of land in 1957 and appellant Nos. 6 and 7 also made reservations of 27 Standard acres each. The original landowners, appellant Nos. 1 to 5 also revised and increased their reservations to make up the area of 27.15 Standard acres in each case.

(3.) The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that these transfers had been made before the coming into force of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act of 1956 and that Section 32 which provided that such transfers were not to affect the rights of the tenants under Section 22 of the Act had not come into force when these transfers were made. Section 32 provided that transfers made after the commencement of President Act No. 8 of 1953 are not to affect the right of any tenant to acquire proprietary rights in the land under his tenancy. The President's Act No. 8 of 1953 which came into force on 2.12.1953 had also incorporated similar provisions, prohibiting transfers of land so that rights of the tenants to acquire lands comprising their tenancies were not defeated by any colourable transfers made after that date. With that purpose in view Section 32 provided that no transfer of land made by a landowner after the commencement of the President's Act shall affect the right of any person to acquire proprietary rights in such land. Sections 22 and 32 find a place in Chapter IV of the Act and were to come into force on a date to be noticed but instead of issuing any notification the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act of 1956 brought about the amendment of Section 1(2) and provided that Chapter IV was to come into force on the date of commencement of amending Act. The provisions relating to the tenant's right to acquire proprietary rights in the land comprising his tenancy had, therefore, been kept in abeyance or suspense for the mutual benefit of the parties and it was expected that status quo would not be disturbed by any party to the detriment of the other during the period of suspension. There is, therefore, no force in the argument that the amending Act of 1956 could not affect transfers made before it had come into force. President's Act No. 8 of 1953 had come into force on 2.12.1953 and contains corresponding provisions to those of Sections 22 and 32 of the Act of 1955. Section 53 of the Act relating to repeals and savings provides that notwithstanding the repeal of President's Act No. 8 of 1953 anything done or any action taken in the exerciser of any power conferred by or under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the Act of 1955 as if that Act was in force on the day on which such thing was done or action was taken. 'The President's Act' has then been defined in clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act as the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 (President's Act 8 of 1953). The transfers of land made in favour of appellant Nos. 6 and 7 by appellant Nos. 1 to 5 in 1956 after the commencement of the President's Act have, therefore, been rightly ignored by the Revenue authorities.