STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BHALLE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (No. 10 of 1953) came into force on the 15th April, 1953. One of the main purposes of that Act was to place a ceiling on 'holdings of land' by fixing the maximum area permissible to be held by a landowner beyond which the rest of the area was to be declared surplus to be utilised for certain purposes mentioned by the Act. Shrimati Manbhari Devi was a landowner and she owned about 77 standard acres of land. Subsequent to the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, she proceeded to part with some of the area in favour of other persons, and in that connection two sale-deeds were executed by her - one on the 19th August. 1953 and the other on the 21st May, 1958. The vendees were put into possession of the land. When the question, however, arose concerning the surplus area of Shrimati Manbhari Devi, the Collector held that inspite of the two sales made in favour of certain persons, the area comprised in those sales, was surplus and was subject to be utilised in accordance with the provision contained in Section 10-A of the Act, the purpose being the resettlement of certain tenants. Against the decision of the Revenue authorities a writ petition was filed in this Court by the transferees and the contention raised on their behalf was that once the land came to be held by them by virtue of the sales, it became their property, and, since their individual holding was not in excess of the permissible area, the land in their hands could not be declared surplus within the meaning of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. This contention was accepted by Mahajan J., in a considered judgment delivered on the 5th December, 1961. This judgment was reported as Bhalle Ram and others v. The State of Punjab and others,1962 PunLR 331. The learned Single Judge, in the result, struck down the order of the Revenue authorities declaring certain areas in the hands of the transferees as surplus. It is against that decision that the present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed on behalf of the Punjab State and others.

(2.) Mr. Kaushal for the appellants points out that subsequent to the decision of Mahajan J., and with the express purpose of getting over the effect of that decision, the Legislature enacted Punjab Act 14 of 1962 by which certain amendments with retrospective effect were made to certain provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. That Act, No. 14 of 1962, came into force on the 4th July, 1962 and its provisions leave no doubt that the Legislature intended to make it clear that the effect of the provisions contained in Sections 10-A, 19-A, 19-B and 19-C, of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act should not have the result mentioned by Mahajan J., and for that reason retrospective effect was given to some of the declaratory provisions. Section 4 of the amending Act thus provided in Section 10-A, clause (b), that "for the purposes of determining the surplus area............. no judgment, decree or order of a Court or other authority" should be taken into consideration. It is clear now from the amendments that the surplus area in connection with any landowner is to be determined on the basis of that landowner's holding as it existed on the 15th April 1953 and the land, which is in fact surplus at that time, will remain surplus irrespective of any transfer made by the landowner subsequently. In these circumstances and in view of the express amendments of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge in this case cannot stand. We have, therefore, to allow this appeal and set aside the order made by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition brought by the respondents, leaving the parties, however, to their own costs. I agree.