http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

PETITIONER: GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE, JAMALPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MALWINDER SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/07/1985

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA TULZAPURKAR, V.D. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1394            1985 SCR  Supl. (2)  28  1985 SCC  (3) 661        1985 SCALE  (2)35

ACT:      Constitution of  India  1950,  Articles  31,  31A,  254 Seventh Schedule List II Entry No. 18 and List III Entry No. 41.      Assent of  President to law sought for specific purpose - Efficacy of assent - Limited to that purpose and cannot be extended beyond it.      Law made  by Parliament - Law made by State Legislature Inconsistency - Which law to prevail.      State  Legislature   whether  competent   to  make  law relating to  agrarian reform in respect of property which by process of law vested in Central Government or Custodian.      Administration of  Evacuee Property Act 1950, Section 8 (2) &  Punjab Village  Common Lands  (Regulation) Act  1953. Section 3  Central Act  and State  Act -  Conflict - Whether exists -  Evacuee property  - Vesting of - Shamlat-deh lands nature of - Explained.

HEADNOTE:      Prior to  the partition of India, the Shamlat-deh lands in Punjab  were owned  by the proprietors of the other lands in the  village, "Hasab Rasad Khewat" in the same proportion in which  they owned  the other  lands. A person who did not own any  other land  in the  village could therefore have no proprietary right  or interest  in Shamlat-deh  lands. There were some  villages in Punjab which were mostly inhabited by Muslims, with  the result that almost all the lands in those villages were  owned by  Muslim proprietors who, as a result of  their   proprietary  interest   in  those  Lands  had  a proportionate undivided’  share in  the  Shamlat-deh  lands. They had  only an ’undivided’ share in the Shamlat-deh lands because such  lands were  not liable  to be partitioned they could not be alienated and they were intended to be used and were in fact used, without exception, as undivided’ property of the  proprietors of the other lands. Some of the villages in Punjab  and many  in Haryana  were  inhabited  partly  by Muslims and partly by non-Muslims. 29      After the  partition as  a result  of the unprecedented

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

movement of  population, most  of  the  Muslims  proprietors migrated to  Pakistan whereas  the non-Muslims  continued to live  in   their  villages.   Multidimensional   interlinked problems of  administration of  the properties  of those who had left  the country  and rehabilitation  of those that had poured into the country arose.      The question  as to the management and the preservation of the  property left  by Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the  East Punjab  Evacuees (Administration  of  Property) Act, 14  of  1947.  Section  4  thereof  provided  that  all interests in  the property  whether movable  or immovable of the evacuees  vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government. This  Act of the State Legislature, was repealed and replaced  by  an  Act  passed  by  the  Parliament,  the Administration of  Evacuee Property Act, 1950. That Act into force on  April 17,  1950. As a result of this provision the interest of  all evacuees  which had vested in the Custodian appointed under the Punjab Act 14 of 1947, came to be vested in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950. In the villages which were wholly inhabited by Muslims and from which almost the entire population migrated to Pakistan, all the Shamlat-deh  lands together  with the  other proprietary lands were  declared evacuee  property and came to be vested in the  Custodian. In the villages which were inhabited both by Muslims  and non-Muslims, the proprietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees  vested in the Custodian and along with that the interest  of the  proprietors in  the Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was also vested in the Custodian.      In the  writ petitions  filed in  the  High  Court  the controversy was  between the right of the Gram Panchayats to the Shamlat-deh  lands situated in those villages which fell within their  jurisdiction and, on the other hand, the right of Rehabilitation  Department of  the Central  Government to allot lands  of that  description,  to  the  extent  of  the evacuee interest  therein,  to  persons  who  migrated  from Pakistan to India after the partition of the Country.      The  contention  of  the  Central  Government  and,  of persons to  whom its  Rehabilitation Department has allotted the Shamlat-deh  lands on  their migration to India, is that the interest  in such  lands, of the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan is  evacuee property  which the  Central Government has the right to allot under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation  and Rehabilitation)  Act of 1954. The contention of the Government of 30 Punjab and  of the  Gram Panchayats in Punjab and Haryana is that, by  reason of  the provisions  of the  Punjab  Village Common Lands  (Regulation) Act  of 1953, the interest of all persons whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the Shamlat-deh lands stood  extinguished and those lands were placed by the said Act  under the control and power of the respective Gram Panchayats.      The High  Court held  that there was repugnancy between the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1950  and  those  of  the  Punjab  Village  Common  Lands (Regulation) Act of 1953.      Allowing the appeal to this Court, ^      HELD:(By the  Court) 1.  There  is  a  direct  conflict between  section  8(2)  of  the  Administration  of  Evacuee Property Act  1950, and  Section 3  of  the  Punjab  Village Common Lands  (Regulation) Act,  1953  on  the  question  of vesting of evacuee property. [38 A]      2. The  Punjab Act  was reserved  for the assent of the President though  for the  specific and  limited purpose  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

Articles 31  and 31-A  of the  Constitution. That assent can not avail  the State Government for the purpose of according precedence to  the law  made by  the Legislature  namely the Punjab Act  of 1953  over the  law made  by  the  Parliament namely the  Central Act of 1950 even within the jurisdiction of the State. [41 F,42 F]      Rahman v.  Sai ILR 9 Lahore 501 & Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [1965] 1 SCR 82 referred to.      Rattingan’s Digest  of Customary  Law in  the Punjab  - Chapter X referred to.      (Per Chandrachud  C.J.,  S.  Murtaza  Fazal  Ali,  V.D. Tulzapurkar and A. Varadarajan, JJ.)      1. (i) A mere reading of the two sections, Section 3 of the Punjab  Act of  1953 and section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950  would show  that there is a direct conflict between the two  provisions. Under  s.4 of  the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of  Property) Act 14 of 1947 which came into force on  December 13,  1947 all  interest in  the property, movable  or   immovable,  of  the  evacuees  vested  in  the Custodian appointed by the State Government. The Central Act of 1950 repealed by the East Punjab Act 14 of 1947. Under s. 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 the evacuee 31 property which  was vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government under the repealed Act, was to be deemed to be evacuee  property declared  as such under the Central Act and became  vested in  the  Custodian  appointed  under  the Central Act. [38 A-B]      (ii) As  a result of s. 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 the Custodian appointed  under  the  Central  Act  of  1950  was divested of  the Shamlat-deh  lands, to  the extent  of  the interest therein  of the Muslim proprietors who had migrated to Pakistan. [38 D]      (iii) If  the Punjab Legislature had not passed the Act of 1953,  the Custodian  appointed or deemed to be appointed under the  Central Act  of 1950  could have  dealt with  the interest of  the Muslim evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands as evacuee property,  though consistently  with the limitations which operated  upon that  interest. He forfeited that power because, the Punjab Act of 1953 extinguished the interest of all persons,  whether  Hindus,  Sikhs  or  Muslims,  in  the Shamlat-deh lands  and vested all rights, title and interest in  such   lands  in   the  respective   panchayats   having jurisdiction over the village. [38 F] 2.   Article 254  of the  Constitution deals with situations where there  is inconsistency  between the  laws made by the Parliament and  the laws made by the Legislature of a State. Since the law made by the Legislature of the State of Punjab namely, s.  3 of  the Punjab Act of 1953 is repugnant to the law  made   by  the  Parliament  which  the  Parliament  was competent to  enact namely  s. 8(2)  of the  Central Act  of 1950, the  law made  by the  Parliament must prevail and the law made by the Punjab Legislature has to be held to be void to the  extent of  the repugnancy.  The repugnancy is to the extent that  whereas under  the Central  Act the interest of the evacuees  in all  properties including  the  Shamlat-deh lands vests  in the  Custodian appointed  or  deemed  to  be appointed under  that Act, the Shamlat-deh lands vest in the Panchayats under the provisions of the State Act. [39 B-F] 3.   The Punjab  Act of  1953 was reserved for consideration of the  President and  received his  assent on  December 26, 1953. Prima  facie by reason of the assent of the President, the Punjab Act would prevail in the State of Punjab over the Act of the Parliament and the Panchayats would be at liberty to deal with the Shamlat-deh lands according to the relevant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

Rules  or  Bye-laws  governing  the  matter,  including  the evacuee interest  therein. The  Punjab Act  was reserved for assent of  the President though for the specific and limited purpose of Articles 31 and 32 31-A of  the Constitution.  Since the  Punjab  Act  of  1953 extinguished all  private interest  in Shamlat-deh lands and vested those  lands in  the Village Panchayats and since the Act was  a measure  of agrarian  reforms it was reserved for the consideration of the President. [41 E-F, H-42 A]      In the  instant case,  the assent  of the  President is sought to  the law  for a  specific purpose, the efficacy of the assent  would be  limited to  that purpose and cannot be extended beyond it. Not only was the President not appraised in the  instant case  that his  assent was sought because of the repugnancy  between the  State Act  and the pre-existing Central Act  on the  vesting of  evacuee properties  but his assent was  sought for  a  different  specific  purpose  all together. [42 D-E] 4.   Though the law made by the Parliament prevails over the law made  by the  State  Legislature  the  interest  of  the evacuees in  the Shamlat-deh  lands  cannot  be  dealt  with effectively by  the Custodian  under the Central Act because of the peculiar incidents characteristics of such lands. The unfortunate result  is that  the vesting in the Custodian of the evacuee  interest in  the Shamlat-deh  lands is  more or less an  empty formality.  It does not help the Custodian to implement the  provisions of the Central law but it excludes the benign operation of the State Law. [42 H-43 A] 5.   Parliament has passed a law which falls under entry No. 41 of  the Concurrent  List, while the State Legislature has passed a  law which  falls under  Entry No.  18 of the State List. The  law passed  by  the  State  Legislature  being  a measure of  agrarian reform  is conductive to the welfare of the community and there is no reason why that law should not have effect  in its  full amplitude.  By this  process,  the village panchayats  will be  able to  meet the  needs of the village community and secure its welfare. [43 F] 6.   The Punjab  Act of  1953 would  prevail in the State of Punjab over  the Central  Act of  1950 even  in  so  far  as Shamlat-deh lands are concerned. [43 G] 7.   Under  the  Central  Act  of  1950,  the  Custodian  is entitled to preserve and manage the interest of the evacuees in all  evacuee properties, which would include the Shamlat- deh lands.  Under the  Punjab Act  of 1953,  the Shamlat-deh lands vest  in the  Panchayat which  carries  the  right  of preservation and  management of such lands. By reason of the State Act,  the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his Control over the 33 evacuee interest  in the  Shamlat-deh lands.  The impact  of this divestment,  is that  the Rehabilitation  Department of the Central  Government loses its power to allot such lands, to the  extent of the evacuee interest therein, to displaced Persons in order to satisfy their claims under the Displaced Persons (Compensation  and Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954.  Such properties therefore,  cannot from  part of the Compensation pool. Nor can these properties, to the extent of the surplus remaining  after   allotment  to   displaced   persons,   be transferred  by   the  Central   Government  to   the  State Government, under  the ’Package Deal’ of 1961. What vests in the Custodian  is  the  interest  of  the  evacuee  as  such together with all the interests to which it is subject. That interest cannot  be freed  from its incidents merely because it comes  to be vested in the Custodian as evacuee property.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

The Custodian  gets what the evacuee had, quantitatively and qualitatively.  If  the  evacuee  interest  in  Shamlat  was incapable  of  alienation  and  if  Shamlat-deh  lands  were regarded as reserved for the common use, the Custodian would have no  right to  allot them  for the separate or exclusive use of  displaced persons  who migrated  to India  after the partition of  the Country.  If no  allotment could  be  made under    the    Displaced    Persons    (Compensation    and Rehabilitation) Act,  1954 there would be no question of any surplus and, consequently, no occasion to transfer ’surplus’ land to  the State Government. The peculiar incidents of co- share’s interest  in the  Shamlat-deh lands,  and the severe limitations  operating   upon  that   interest  renders  the provisions of  the Central  Act of 1950, virtually innocuous and inoperative. The Custodian under that Act would have the husk of  the title to the evacuees’ interest in the Shamlat- deh lands  as a  result of  the vesting  of that interesting him, but  beyond such  vesting he  would  be  powerless,  in practice,  to   distribute  those  lands  to  the  displaced persons. [39 G-40 F] 8.   The  hall-mark   of  the  Shamlat-deh  lands  is  their indivisibility and inalienability. [40 G]      (Per Chinnappa Reddy, J. concurring) 1.   The question  in the  present case is not whether there was any  conflict between the Central and State Legislations but whether  the legislature  of the  State could make a law relating to  agrarian reform  in respect  of property  which included property  which by  a process  of  law  has  become vested in  the Central Government or the Custodian. [49 H-50 B] 34 2.   When the  Parliament and the State Legislature, each of them legislate  in their own field with respect to different subjects-in this  case Evacuee Property and the Shamlat-deh, no reason  is found to conclude that there was necessarily a conflict between the two legislations. [49 H] 3.   There is  no reason to why the State Legislature should be considered incompetent to make a law relating to agrarian reform. The  Punjab Act  of 1953 is indeed a law relating to agrarian reforms  even though it affects lands vested in the Central Government or the Custodian. [50 B] 4.   The effect  of the  Administration of  Evacuee Property Act was  not to  take away  the Character  of Shamlat-deh as Shamilat-deh but only to vest in the Custodian such interest as the  evacuee possessed  in the Shamilat-deh. The interest which the  erstwhile evacuees possessed was neither enlarged nor abridged.  The land  continued to be Shamilat-deh and it could be  the subject  of  competent  State  Legislation  as Shamilat-deh. If  for the  purpose of  agrarian  reform  the legislature of  the State  enacted a law as it was competent to do  and consent  was  accorded  by  the  President  under Article 31-A  of the Constitution, there is no justification for the  argument that  there was  any conflict  between the Punjab Act and the Central Act. [49 D-E] 5.   It would  be wholly wrong to suggest that the zamindari becoming vested  in the  Custodian on  account of the Muslim zamindari (intermediary) migrating to Pakistan, raiyati land in the  village changed  its  character  and  the  occupancy rights of  the raiyats  ceased in  the lands, merely because the Zamindar  migrated to  Pakistan and  the Zamindar became vested in  the Custodian.  Similarly lands  in an  erstwhile Zamindari set apart for pasture, as grazing grounds etc. did not lose  their character  as such  on the  migration of the Zamindar to Pakistan. [49 F-G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1401(N) of 1973.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  15.5.1973  of  the Punjab and  Haryana High  Court in  Civil Writ  No. 2657  of 1970.      S.L. Aneja and K.L.Taneja for Appellant No. 1.      Hardev Singh and R.S.Sodhi for Appellant No. 2. 35      N.C.Talukdar, C.V.  Subba Rao,  R.N. Poddar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent No. 2.      S.Ram Singh Bindra and Harbans Singh for the Respondent No. 1.      The following Judgments were delivered      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.  Eight writ  petitions were  filed in the High  Court of  Punjab and  Haryana, involving  a common question of  law as  to the  alleged repugnancy  between the Administration of  Evacuee Property  Act of  1950  and,  the Punjab  Village   Common  Lands  (Regulation)  Act  of  1953 (referred to  herein as ’the Punjab Act of 1953’). Four, out of the eight writ petitions, relate to lands situated in the State of  Haryana, while  the remaining four relate to lands situated in the State of Punjab.      The controversy  in the  writ petitions  is between the right of  the  Gram  Panchayats  to  the  Shamlat-deh  lands situated  in   those  villages   which  fall   within  their jurisdiction and,  on the  other  hand,  the  right  of  the Rehabilitation Department of the Central Government to allot lands of  that description,  to the  extent of  the  evacuee interest therein,  to persons  who migrated from Pakistan to India after  the partition of the country. The contention of the  Central   Government  and,   of  persons  to  whom  its Rehabilitation Department has allotted the Shamlat-deh lands on their  migration to  India, is that the interest, in such lands, of  the Muslims  who migrated  to Pakistan is evacuee property which the Central Government has the right to allot under the  provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)  Act of  1954. On  the other  hand,  the contention of  the Government  of Punjab  and  of  the  Gram Panchayats in  Punjab and  Haryana is that, by reason of the provisions of  the Punjab  Act of  1953, the interest of all persons, whether  Hindus, Sikhs  or Muslims, in the Shamlat- deh lands  stood extinguished and those lands were placed by the said  Act under  the control and power of the respective Gram Panchayat.      Prior to  the partition of India on August 15, 1947 the Shamlat-deh lands in Punjab were owned by the proprietors of the other  lands in  the Village, "Hasab Rasad Khewat", that is to  say, in  the same  proportion in which they owned the other lands.  Therefore, a  person who did not own any other land in  the village  could have  no  proprietary  right  or interest in  the Shamlat-deh lands, But, though the interest of the proprietors of the other lands, in Shamlat-deh lands, was incidental to their proprietary 36 interest in those other lands, such interest in the Shamilat was not  a mere  appendage to  their interest  in the  other lands. Our  learned Brother Chinnappa Reddy, has referred in his judgment to a leading decision of the Lahore High Court, Rehman v. Sai ILR 9 Lahore 501 in which it was held that, if a proprietor  alienated his  land,  the  alienee  would  not acquire any  interest in  the Shamilat by mere virtue of the alienation.  That   was  but   consequential  to  the  well-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

established legal  position in  Punjab that  the Shamlat-deh lands were intended for the common use of all sharers.      There were  some villages  in Punjab  which were mostly inhabited by  Muslims, with  the result  that almost all the lands in  those villages  were owned  by Muslim  proprietors who, as  a result  of their  proprietary interest  in  those lands, had  a proportionate  undivided share in the Shamlat- deh lands.  They  had  only  an  ’undivided’  share  in  the Shamlat-deh lands  because such  lands were not liable to be partitioned, they  could not  be alienated  and,  they  were intended  to   be  used  and  were  in  fact  used,  without exception, as  undivided property  of the proprietors of the other lands. Indeed, our learned Brother has cited a passage from Rattigan’s ’Digest of the Customary Law in the Punjab’, which shows  that Shamlat-deh lands were treated as reserved for common  village purposes. Some of the villages in Punjab and many  in Haryana,  were inhabited  partly by Muslims and partly  by  non-Muslims.  Most  of  the  Muslim  proprietors migrated to  Pakistan whereas,  the non-Muslims continued to live in their villages.      The question  as to  the management and preservation of the property  left by  Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the East  Punjab Evacuees  (Administration of Property) Act, 14 of  1947. That  was an  Act of  the  Punjab  Legislature, section 4  of which  provided  that  all  interests  in  the property whether  movable  or  immovable,  of  the  evacuees vested in  the Custodian  appointed by the State Government. That Act,  like similar  Acts  passed  by  the  other  State Legislatures, was  repealed and replaced by an Act passed by the Parliament,  viz; the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950,  to which  we will  refer as  the ’Central Act of 1950’. That  Act came  into force on April 17, 1950. Section 8(2) thereof provided that, if any property in the State had vested immediately  before the  commencement of  the Act  as evacuee property  in any Custodian under any law repealed by the Act,  that property  shall, on  the commencement  of the Act, be  deemed to be evacuee property and shall vest in the Custodian appointed for 37 the State  under the Act. As a result of this provision, the interest of  all evacuees  which had vested in the Custodian under the  Punjab Act  14 of  1947, came to be vested in the Custodian appointed  under the  Central Act  of 1950. In the villages which  were wholly  inhabited by  Muslims and  from which almost the entire population migrated to Pakistan, all the Shamlat-deh  lands together  with the  other proprietary lands were  declared evacuee  property and came to be vested in the  Custodian. In the villages which were inhabited both by Muslims  and non-Muslims  the proprietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees  vested in  the Custodian  and,  along  with that, the  interest of  the proprietors  in the  Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was, also vested in the Custodian.      The point  which arises for our consideration and which has been  answered in  the affirmative  by the High Court of Punjab and  Haryana is  whether,  there  is  any  repugnancy between the  provisions of the Central Act of 1950 and those of the Punjab Act of 1953. (The latter Act has been referred to by  the High  Court as  the Act  of 1954  because, though passed in 1953, it was numbered as Act 1 of 1954). Section 3 of the  Punjab Act,  which is  said to be the focal point of the repugnancy, reads thus, in so far as relevant                "3. Vesting  of rights  in Panchayats  end in           non-proprietors:           Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained           in  any   other  law   for  the   time  being   in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

         force.........all  rights,   title  and   interest           whatsoever in the land-           (a)  which  is  included  in  Shamlat-deh  of  any           village, shall,  on the  appointed date, vest in a           Panchayat having jurisdiction over the village".      Section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 reads thus :           "Where, immediately  before  the  commencement  of           this Act,  any property  in a  State had vested as           evacuee property  in  any  person  exercising  the           powers of Custodian under any law repealed hereby,           the property  shall, on  the commencement  of this           Act, be  deemed to be evacuee property declared as           such within  the meaning of this Act, and shall be           deemed to  have vested  in the Custodian appointed           or deemed  to have  been appointed  for the  State           under this Act and shall continue to so vest." 38      A mere  reading of  the two sections, namely, section 3 of the  Punjab Act  of 1953  and section 8(2) of the Central Act of  1950, would  show that  there is  a direct  conflict between the  two provisions.  Under section  4 of  the  East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act 14 of 1947, which came  into force  on December 13, 1947 all interest in the property,  movable or  immovable, of the evacuees vested in the  Custodian appointed  by the  State  Government.  The Central Act of 1950 repealed the East Punjab Act 14 of 1947. Under section  8 (2) of the Central Act of 1950, the evacuee property which  was vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government under the repealed Act, was to be deemed to be evacuee  property declared  as such under the Central Act and became  vested in  the  Custodian  appointed  under  the Central Act.  Thereafter came  the Punjab  Act of 1953 under which, "Notwithstanding  anything to  the contrary contained in any  other law  for the time being in force", all rights, title and  interest whatsoever  in the  Shamlat-deh lands of any village,  came to  be vested  in  the  Panchayat  having jurisdiction over  the particular village. It is quite clear that as  a result of this provision, the Custodian appointed under the  Central Act  of 1950 was divested of the Shamlat- deh lands,  to the  extent of  the interest  therein of  the Muslim proprietors  who had  migrated to  Pakistan.  If  the Punjab Legislature  had not  passed the  Act  of  1953,  the Custodian appointed  or deemed  to be  appointed  under  the Central Act  of 1950  could have  dealt with the interest of the Muslim  evacuees in  the Shamlat-deh  lands  as  evacuee property, though  consistently with  the  limitations  which operated  upon   that  interest.  He  forfeited  that  power because, the  Punjab Act  of 1953 extinguished the interests of all  persons, whether  Hindus, Sikhs  or Muslims,  in the Shamlat-deh lands  and vested all rights, title and interest in  such   lands  in   the  respective   Panchayats   having jurisdiction over  the village. It may be mentioned that the Punjab Act  of 1953  was repealed  and replaced by an Act of 1961, bearing a similar title. That Act defines the Shamlat- deh  lands   in  a   slightly  different  manner  but,  that difference is  inconsequential for resolving the controversy which arise before us.      Having seen  that there  is a  direct conflict  between section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 and section 3 of the Punjab Act  of 1953  on the  question of  vesting of evacuee property, the  question which arises is as to which of these two Acts  would prevail. That question has to be answered in the light  of the  provisions of the Constitution. Entry No. 41 in  List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, reads thus :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

39           "Custody,  management  and  disposal  of  property           (including agricultural  land) declared  by law to           be evacuee property". Since the  interest of the evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands was deemed  to be  declared as  evacuee property,  both  the State Legislature  and the Central Legislature had the power to deal  with that  interest by  virtue  of  Entry  No.  41. Article 254  of the Constitution deals with situations where there  is   inconsistency  between  the  laws  made  by  the Parliament and  the laws made by the Legislature of a State. Clause (1)  of that  Article,  to  the  extent  that  it  is relevant, reads thus :           "(1) If  any  provision  of  a  law  made  by  the           legislature  of   a  State  is  repugnant  to  any           provision  of  a  law  made  by  Parliament  which           parliament is  competent to  enact, ......., then,           subject to  the provisions  of clause (2), the law           made by Parliament, whether passed before or after           the law  made by  the Legislature  of such  State,           ....  shall  prevail  and  the  Law  made  by  the           Legislature of  the State  shall, to the extent of           the repugnancy, be void.’ Since the  law made  by the  Legislature  of  the  State  of Punjab, namely,  section 3  of the  Punjab Act  of 1953,  is repugnant to  the law  made  by  the  Parliament  which  the Parliament was  competent to  enact, namely, section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950, the law made by the Parliament must prevail and the law made by the Punjab Legislature has to be held to  be void  to  the  extent  of  the  repugnancy.  The repugnancy is  to the extent that whereas, under the Central Act,  the  interest  of  the  evacuees  in  all  properties, including the  Shamlat-deh  lands,  vest  in  the  Custodian appointed or  deemed to  be appointed  under that  Act,  the Shamlat-deh  lands   vest  in   the  Panchayats   under  the provisions of the State Act.      The consequences  of this  repugnancy are self-evident. Under the  Central Act of 1950, the Custodian is entitled to preserve and manage the interests of evacuees in all evacuee properties, which would include the Shamlat-deh lands. Under the Punjab  Act of  1953, the  Shamlat-deh lands vest in the Panchayats, which  carries with it the right of preservation and management  of such  Lands. In  brief, by  reason of the State Act,  the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his control over the evacuee interest in the Shamlat-deh lands. The 40 most significant  impact of this divestment, though somewhat of an academic nature, is that the Rehabilitation Department of the  Central Government  loses its  power to  allot  such lands, to  the extent  of the  evacuee interest  therein, to displaced persons in order to satisfy their claims under the Displaced Persons  (Compensation  and  Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954. Such  properties, therefore,  cannot form  part of the Compensation pool.  Nor can  these properties, to the extent of  the  surplus  remaining  after  allotment  to  displaced persons, be  transferred by  the Central  Government to  the State Government  under the  ’Package Deal’ of 1961. We said that the  impact of  repugnancy is  somewhat of  an academic nature because,  what vests in the Custodian is the interest of the  evacuee such as it is, that is to say, together with all the incidents to which the evacuee interest was subject. That interest  cannot be  freed from  its  incidents  merely because it  comes to  be vested  in the Custodian as evacuee property.  The   Custodian  gets   what  the   evacuee  had,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

quantitatively and  qualitatively. If the evacuee’s interest in Shamlat  was incapable  of alienation and if Shamlat- deh lands were  regarded as  reserved for  the common use of the villagers, the  Custodian would  have no right to allot them for the  separate or  exclusive use of displaced persons who migrated to  India after the partition of the country. If no allotment could be made by the Custodian under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954, there would be  no question  of any surplus land, consequently, no occasion to  transfer ’surplus’ land to the State Government under the  Package Deal  of 1961.  The peculiar incidents of the co-sharers’  interest in  the Shamlat-deh  lands and the severe limitations  operating upon  that interest render the provisions of  the Central  Act of  1950 virtually innocuous and inoperative.  The Custodian,  under that Act, would have the husk  of the  title to  the evacuees’  interest  in  the Shamlat-deh lands  as  a  result  of  the  vesting  of  that interest in  him but,  beyond  such  vesting,  he  would  be powerless, in  practice, to  distribute those  lands to  the displaced persons. The hall-mark of the Shamlat-deh lands is their indivisibility  and  inalienability,  [See  Rattigan’s Digest’, to  which our learned Brother, Chinnappa Reddy, has made a copious reference].      If Article  254(1) stood  by itself,  there would  have been no  difficulty in  holding that,  for  whatever  it  is worth, the  Central Act of 1950 prevails over the Punjab Act of 1953 since, the two Acts which are relatable to Entry No. 41 of  the Concurrent  List, are  repugnant to each other in the matter of vesting of the evacuee interest in Shamlat-deh lands. But, there is another 41 facet  of  this  question  without  considering  which,  the question of competing priorities between the two Acts cannot be determined. It shall have been noticed that the provision contained in  clause (1)  of Article  254 is "subject to the provisions of  clause(2)" of  that Article. Clause (2) reads thus :           "(2) Where  a law  made by  the Legislature  of  a           State  with   respect  to   one  of   the  matters           enumerated in  the Concurrent  List  contains  any           provision  repugnant   to  the  provisions  of  an           earlier law  made by Parliament or an existing law           with respect to that matter, then, the law so made           by the  Legislature of such State shall, if it has           been  reserved   for  the   consideration  of  the           President and  has received his assent, prevail in           that State :           Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent           Parliament from  enacting at any time any law with           respect to  the same matter including a law adding           to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made           by the Legislature of the State."      The Punjab  Act of  1953 was reserved for consideration of the  President and  received his  assent on  December 26, 1953. Prima facie, by reason of the assent of the President, the Punjab Act would prevail in the State of Punjab over the Act of the Parliament and the Panchayats would be at liberty to deal with the Shamlat-deh lands according to the relevant Rules  or  Bye-laws  governing  the  matter,  including  the evacuee interest  therein. But,  there is  a complication of some nicety  arising out of the fact that the Punjab Act was reserved for  the assent  of the  President, though  for the specific and  limited purpose of Articles 31 and 31-A of the Constitution.  Article   31,  which   was  deleted   by  the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 provided for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

compulsory acquisition  of  property.  Clause  (3)  of  that Article provided  that, no  law referred  to in  clause (2), made by  the Legislature of a State shall have effect unless such law,  having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has  received his  assent. Article  31-A  confers protection upon  laws falling  within clauses  (a) to (e) of that Article,  provided that  such laws,  if made by a State Legislature, have  received the  assent  of  the  President. Clause (a)  of Article  31-A comprehends  laws  of  agrarian reform. Since  the  Punjab  Act  of  1953  extinguished  all private interests  in Shamlat-deh  lands  and  vested  those lands in  the Village  Panchayats and  since, the  Act was a measure  of   agrarian  reform   it  was  reserved  for  the consideration of the 42 President. The  judgment of  the High  Court shows  that the hearing of  the writ  petitions was  adjourned to enable the State Government  to place material before the Court showing the purpose  for which  the Punjab Act of 1953 was forwarded to the  President for  his assent.  The record shows, and it was not disputed either before us or in the High Court, that the Act  was not reserved for the assent of the President on the ground that it was repugnant to an earlier Act passed by the Parliament,  namely, the  Central Act  of 1950. In these circumstances we  agree with  the High Court that the Punjab Act of  1953 cannot  be said  to have  been reserved for the assent of  the President within the meaning of clause (2) of Article 254  of the  Constitution insofar  as its repugnancy with the Central Act of 1950 is concerned. The assent of the President under  Article 254(2) of the Constitution is not a matter of idle formality. The President has, at least, to be apprised of the reason why his assent is sought if, there is any special reason for doing so. If the assent is sought and given in  general terms  so  as  to  be  effective  for  all purposes, different  considerations may  legitimately arise. But if,  as in the instant case, the assent of the President is sought to the Law for a specific purpose, the efficacy of the assent  would be  limited to  that purpose and cannot be extended beyond  it. Not only was the President not apprised in the  instant case  that his  assent was sought because of the repugnancy  between the  State Act  and the pre-existing Central Act  on the  vesting of  evacuee properties but, his assent  was   sought  for   a  different,  specific  purpose altogether. Therefore,  that assent  cannot avail  the State Government for  the purpose  of according  precedence to the law made by the State Legislature, namely, the Punjab Act of 1953, over  the law  made by the Parliament, even within the jurisdiction of the State.      This situation  creates a conundrum. The Central Act of 1950 prevails  over the  Punjab Act  of 1953  by  virtue  of Article 254  (1) of  the Constitution read with Entry No. 41 of the  Concurrent List;  and, Article  254(2) cannot afford assistance to  reverse that  position since  the President’s assent, which was obtained for a specific purpose, cannot be utilised for  according priority  to the  Punjab Act. Though the law made by the Parliament prevails over the law made by the State  Legislature, the  interest of the evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands  cannot be  dealt with  effectively by the Custodian under  the Central  Act, because  of the  peculiar incidents and characteristics of such lands. The unfortunate result is that the vesting in the Custodian of the 43 evacuee interest  in the Shamlat-deh lands is, more or less, an empty  formality. It  does  not  help  the  Custodian  to implement the provisions of the Central law but, it excludes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

the benign operation of the State law.      The line of reasoning of our learned Brother, Chinnappa Reddy,   affords    a   satisfactory    solution   to   this constitutional impasse,  which we  adopt without reservation of any  kind. The  pith and  substance of  the Punjab Act of 1953 is  ’Land’ which  falls under  Entry No.  18 of List II (State List)  of the  Seventh Schedule  to the Constitution. That Entry reads thus :           "Entry No. 18 - Land, that is to say, rights in or           over land,  land tenures including the relation of           landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents ;           transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land           improvement and agricultural loans; colonization." Our learned  Brother has extracted a passage from a decision of a  Constitution Bench  of this  Court in  Ranjit Singh v. State of  Punjab [1965]  1 S.C.R.  1982, which took the view that since,  the Punjab Act of 1953 is a measure of agrarian reform it  would receive  the protection of Article 31-A. It may be  recalled that the Act had received the assent of the President as  required by the first proviso to that Article. The power  of the  State Legislature  to pass law on matters enumerated in  the State  List is exclusive by reason of the provision contained  in Article  246(3). In  a nutshell, the position is that the Parliament has passed a law on a matter which falls under Entry No. 41 of the Concurrent List, while the State  Legislature has  passed a  law which  falls under Entry No.  18 of the State List. The law passed by the State Legislature being a measure of agrarian reform, is conducive to the  welfare of  the community and there is no reason why that law  should not  have effect  in its full amplitude. By this process,  the village  panchayats will  be able to meet the needs  of the  village community and secure its welfare. Accordingly, the  Punjab Act  of 1953  would prevail  in the State of Punjab over the Central Act of 1950, even in so far as Shamlat-deh lands are concerned.      In the  result, the  judgment of  the High Court is set aside and  this appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.      Civil Appeal  Nos. 2044  of 1974  and 1963-65  of  1975 which were  heard along  with this  appeal and which involve the same points are also allowed, with no order as to costs. 44      Special Leave  is granted in Special Leave Petition No. 7984 of  1981. The  appeal is  allowed, with  no order as to costs.      Civil Appeal  Nos. 2125  of 1978,  470 of 1969, 1832 of 1969, 1088  of 1969,  1726 of  1974 and  1728 of  1974  were delinked from  the above  group of  matters as  they involve questions relating  to the  ’package deal’  of  1961.  Those matters may be listed for hearing at an early date.      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. I  agree with the conclusion of my lord the  Chief Justice and I reiterate the proposition that the assent accorded by the President for the express purpose of Article  31-A is  not capable of automatic transformation into assent  for  the  purpose  of  Article  254(2)  of  the Constitution.      In  my   view  the   question  that   really   requires determination is  not one  of repugnancy  between the Punjab Act and  the Central  Act but what is the product of the two Acts, each  operating in its own assigned field? What is the effect of the Punjab Act of 1953 on the Central Act of 1950? Is it a case of Peter robbing Paul?      In Rattigan’s  ’Digest of Customary Law in the Punjab’, in the introduction to Chapter X (Village Common Land) it is noted that  within the  territorial limits  of every village

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

some portion  of the  uncultivated waste  lands are reserved ’for purposes  of common  pasture, for assemblies of people, for the  tethering of  the village  cattle, and the possible extension of  the village  dwellings’  and  that  ’Lands  so reserved are jealously guarded as the Common property of the original body  of settlers  who founded the village or their descendants, and  occasionally also  those who  assisted the settlers  in  clearing  the  waste  and  bringing  it  under cultivation are  recognized  as  having  a  share  in  these reserved plots’.  It was  further noticed  "Even in villages which have  adopted separate  ownership as to the cultivated area, some  such  plots  are  usually  reserved  as  village common, and  in pattidar villages, it is not unusual to find certain portions of the waste reserved for the common use of the proprietors of each patti, and other portions for common village purposes. The former is designated as Shamilat-patti and the latter Shamlat-deh". It was said "As a general rule, only   proprietors   of   the   village   (malikan-deh)   as distinguished  from   proprietors  of   their  own  holdings (malikan makbuza khud) are entitled to share in the Shamlat- deh". 45      While it  appears to have been laid down that the right to share in the Village Common Land is an incident attaching to the  ownership of  agricultural land  in the village, and that ordinarily those persons who hold land on which revenue is assessed and who are cosharers in the Khewat are entitled to a  share in  proportion to  the revenue paid by them. See Malik Mohammad  Sher Khan  v. Ghulam  Mohammad I.L.R. (XIII) Lahore 92  it also  appears to be settled law in Punjab that the rights  of a  proprietor in the Shamilat’ are not a mere accessory  to  the  land  held  by  him  and  therefore  ’an alienation of  the latter  does not  ipso facto  confer  any rights in  the former  to the alienee’ (Vide Rahman  v. Sai, I.L.R. (9) Lahore 501, and the cases noted therein). Further according to  Rattigan’s Digest  "In the  absence of  custom none of  the proprietors  can do  anything which  alters the condition of  the joint  property without the consent of all the co-sharers".  (Article 225).  "Nor  can  any  individual proprietor plant or cut trees on the common land, nor sink a well, nor  appropriate  houses  built  for  common  purposes except with such consent" (Article 226). "Nor in the absence of custom  can  the  will  of  the  majority  of  a  village community prevail  against that  of the  minority  when  the question is one as to the disposal of the common property in such a  way as  to preclude  all use  of it  by the owners." (Article 227).  Thus it is seen that Shamilat Deh or Village Common  Land  has  certain  distinctive  and  characteristic features of  its own  and even  a majority of the co-sharers cannot destroy its character.      In 1947,  at the  time of  the partition of India under the British into Independent India and Independent Pakistan, there was a terrible holocaust and an unprecedented movement of population, millions of Hindus and Sikhs moving from West Punjab to  East Punjab  and millions  of Muslims moving from East  Punjab   and   present   Haryana   to   West   Punjab. Multidimensional, interlinked  problems of administration of the properties  of  those  who  had  left  the  country  and rehabilitation of  those that  had poured  into the  country soon arose.      It was  noticed by  this Court  in Indira  Sohanlal  v. Custodian of  Evacuee Property, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1117, it was in order  "to meet  the unprecedented  situation  of  sudden migration of  vast sections  of population  on a large scale from West  Punjab to  East Punjab  and vice  versa,  leaving

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

most  of   the  properties   which  they  had,  movable  and immovable, agricultrual  and nonagricultural,  the concerned Governments had to take wide legislative powers to deal with the situation, to set up the necessary 46 administrative machinery,  and to  evolve and give effect to their policies  in regard thereto from time to time . It was further noticed,  The earliest of these legislative measures so far  as we  are concerned,  was the  East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of  Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947),  which came into force on the 12th December, 1947. This  Act   was  amended   by  the   East  Punjab  Evacuees, (Administration of  Property)  (Amendment)  Ordinance,  1948 (East Punjab  ordinance No.  11 of  1948) and  later by East Punjab Evacuees’  (Administration of  Property)  (Amendment) Act, 1948,(East  Punjab Act XXVI of 1948). The various steps and administrative  measures taken  to settle  the displaced agricultural population  who came  over from West Punjab, on the hurriedly  abandoned lands  of the  Evacuees  from  East Punjab are  to be  found described  in the Land Resettlement Manual by  Shri Tarlok  Singh  who  was  then  the  Director General of  Relief and Rehabilitation. It was later realised that the  various Provincial  Acts enacted  by  the  several provincial legislatures should be replaced by a Central  law and a  Central Administration,  So there was first a Central Ordinance (27  of  1949)  and  then  the  Administration  of Evacuee Property  Act, 1950  which came  into force  on 17th April, 1950.  The Act  provided for  a Centralised  Law  and Centralised Administration and the  creation of an office of Custodian General.      Under Section  8(2) of  the Administration  of  Evacuee Property Act,  1950, all  property which  had vested  in the Custodians appointed  by the  State  Governments  under  the repealed State Acts were to be deemed to be evacuee property declared as  such under Central Act and became vested in the Custodian appointed  under the  Central Act.  Section 8  (2) which may be usefully extracted is as follows :           Where, immediately before the commencement of this           Act, any property in a State had vested as evacuee           property in  any person  exercising the  powers of           Custodian  under  any  law  repealed  hereby,  the           property shall,  on the  commencement of this Act,           be deemed  to be evacuee property declared as such           within the  mean in   of  this Act,  and shall  be           deemed to  have vested  in the Custodian appointed           or deemed  to have  been appointed  for the  State           under this Act and shall continue to so vest." The effect  of the  operation of  the Provincial and Central Acts relating  to Evacuee Property was that Evacuee Property became 47 vested in  the Custodian  but it  must be  noted  that  what became vested in the Custodian was that property left behind by the evacuee, no more and no less. If the evacuee had left behind him Khewat land it became vested in the Custodian. If the evacuee  had left  behind him  the right  to a  share in Shamlat-deh lands,  that too became vested in the Custodian. The vesting,  however, did  not divest Shamilat-deh lands of their character  as Shamlat- deh lands and convert them into Khewat land.  Shamilat-deh lands could only continue and did continue to be Shamilat-deh even after they became vested in the Custodian and the Custodian could only deal with them as a Shamilat-deh  lands in the same manner in which the Muslim proprietors could have dealt with them had they not migrated to Pakistan.  That was  the position  after  the  Parliament

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

enacted the Administration of Evacuees Property Act, 1950.      At that  stage came  the  Punjab  Village  Common  Land Regulation Act  of 1953 which has been held by this Court to be legislation  aimed at  agrarian reform. It had nothing to do and  it did  not purport  to have anything to do with the Administration of  evacuee property.  All Shamilat-deh lands whether they  belonged to  the proprietary body of villagers consisting only  of non-evacuees or whether they belonged to the proprietary  body of  villagers the interests of some of whom had  become vested  in the  Custodian under the various Evacuee Property  laws, were  dealt with  by the  Punjab Act without distinction. All Shamilat-deh lands, notwithstanding anything to  the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, became vested in the village Panchayat. As we  said earlier  the Punjab  Act was a law providing for agrarian reform  and it neither purported to be nor was it a law regulating the administration of Evacuees Property.      In Kanjit  Singh v. State of Punjab [1965] I S.C.R. 82, the very  question arose  whether a  law providing  for  the taking away  of Shamilat-deh  lands from the proprietors and given over  to the  village Panchayat  for allotment to non- proprietors was  a law  relating  to  agrarian  reforms  and whether such  a law  was protected  by Article  31(A). It is worthwhile to  recalling what the Constitution Bench said in answer to the question posed before them? They explained the amplitude of  rural development  and agrarian reforms in the following words :           The High Court was also right in its view that the           proposed changes in the Shamilat-deh and abadi-deh           were included in the general scheme of planning of 48           rural areas  and  the  productive  utilisation  of           vacant  and  waste  lands.  The  scheme  of  rural           development today  envisages  not  only  equitable           distribution of  land so  that there  is no  undue           imbalance in society resulting in a landless class           on the one hand and a concentration of land in the           hands of  a few  on the  other, but envisages also           the raising  of economic  standards and  bettering           rural health and social conditions. Provisions for           the assignment  of lands  to village panchayat for           the  use   of  the   general  community,   or  for           hospitals, schools,  manure pits,  tanning  groups           etc. inure  for the  benefit of  rural  population           must be  considered to be an essential part of the           redistribution of holdings and open lands to which           no  objections   apparently  taken.   If  agrarian           reforms are  to succeed, mere distribution of land           to the  landless is  not enough.  There must  be a           proper planning  of rural  economy and  conditions           and a  body like  the village  Panchayat  is  best           designed to promote rural welfare  than individual           owners of  small portions  of lands.  Further, the           village Panchayat  is an authority for purposes of           Part III  as was conceded before us and it has the           protection  of   Article  31-A   because  of  this           character even  if the taking over of Shamilat-deh           amounts to  acquisition. In  our opinion, the High           Court was right in deciding as it did on this part           of the case."           "With respect to abadi-deh the same reasoning must           apply. The  setting  of  a  body  of  agricultural           artisans  (such   as  the  village  carpenter  the           village blacksmith,  the village  tanner,  farrier           wheelwright, barber, washer man etc.) is a part of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

         rural planning and can be comprehended in a scheme           of agrarian  reforms. It  is a  trite saying  that           India lives  in villages  and  a  scheme  to  make           villages self-sufficient  cannot but  be regard ed           as part  of the larger reforms which consolidation           of  holding   ,  fixing   of  ceilings  on  lands,           distribution of  surplus lands  and  utilising  of           vacant and waste lands contemplate. The four Acts,           namely,  the   Consolidation  Act,   the   Village           Panchayat Act, the Common Lands Regulation Act and           the Security  of Tenure  Act,  are  a  part  of  a           general scheme  of reforms and any modification of           rights such as the present had the 49           protection of  Article 31-A.  The High  Court  was           thus right  in its  conclusion on this part of the           case also." We have quoted this passage in extenso in order to emphasise the meaning  to be  attached to  expressions like  ’agrarian reforms’, ’marketing’,  etc. for  which various legislations have been  made Occasionally we notice that some courts have a tendency  to contine  these expressions  to  strait-jacket meanings, instead of giving a meaning of wide implications.      So  we   have  the  authoritative  pronouncement  of  a Constitution Bench  of this  Court that the Punjab Act which had been  reserved for the assent of the President and which did have  the assent  of the  President is a law relating to agrarian reform  and therefore  immune from challenge, under Article 31-A,  on the  ground that  the law infringed any of the Fundamental  Rights enumerated  in that Article. We have already noticed that the effect of the Administration of the Evacuees Property  Act was not to take away the character of Shamilat-deh  as  Shamilat-deh  but  only  to  vest  in  the Custodian such  interest as  the Evacuee  possessed  in  the Shamilat-deh. The  interest  which  the  erstwhile  evacuees possessed in  the  Shamilat-deh  was  neither  enlarged  nor abridged. The land continued to be Shamilat-deh and it could be the  subject of  competent State Legislation as Shamilat- deh. If  for the purposes of agrarian reform the legislature of the  State enacted  a law  as it was competent to do, and consent to which was accorded by the President under Article 31-A of  the Constitution,  we do  not see any justification for the  argument that  there was  any conflict  between the Punjab Act  and the  Central Act. To illustrate, it would be wholly wrong  to suggest that on a Zamindari becoming vested in  the   Custodian  on   account  of  the  Muslim  Zamindar (intermediary) migrating  to Pakistan  raiyati land  in  the village changed  its character  and the  occupancy rights of the raiyats ceased in the lands, merely because the Zamindar migrated to  Pakistan and the Zamindari became vested in the Custodian. Similarly  lands in  an  erstwhile  Zamindar  set apart for  pasture, as  grazing grounds  etc. did  not  lose their character  as such on the migration of the Zamindar to Pakistan. When  the Parliament  and the  State  Legislature, each of  them legislate  in their  own field with respect to different  subjects   in  this  case  Evacuee  Property  and Shamilat-deh we  do not  find any  reason to  conclude  that there  was   necessarily  a   conflict   between   the   two legislations. The  question  in  the  present  case  is  not whether 50 there was  any conflict  between the  Central and  the State Legislations but  whether the legislature of the State could make a  law  relating  to  agrarian  reform  in  respect  of property which  included property  which by a process of law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

had  become   vested  in   the  Central  Government  or  the Custodian.  We   do  not   see  any  reason  why  the  State Legislature should  be considered  incompetent to make a law relating to  agrarian reform, if indeed it is a law relating to agrarian  reforms as  it has  been found to be so, in the present case,  even it  affects land  vested in  the Central Government or  the Custodian.  In this view of the matter, I agree with the order proposed by my lord the Chief Justice. N.V.K.                                       Appeal allowed. 51