http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: SANT SINGH NALWA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & ORS., ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/03/1981

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J) SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1148            1981 SCR  (3) 330  1981 SCC  (2) 557        1981 SCALE  (1)594

ACT:      Punjab Security  of Land Tenures Act, 1953, S. 2(5) and Punjab Security  of Land  Tenures Rules  1953-Annexure  ’A’- Classification of  land according  to quantity  of yield and quality of soil-Whether valid.

HEADNOTE:      The appellants who were displaced persons were allotted land which was entered as sailab land in the revenue records and they  became the owners of these lands. After the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the  Revenue   Authorities  proceeded   to   determine   the permissible area of the land of the appellants under section 2(3). They  allowed 50 standard acres of land to each of the appellants and declared the balance as surplus land.      The appellants  claimed that the lands allotted to them as displaced  persons fell  in a  portion of District Karnal which was  sailab and  adna  sailab  and  according  to  the classification  made  under  the  Punjab  Security  of  Land Tenures Rules,  1953 they  did not  carry any valuation. The Collector dismissed their application.      The Commissioner  dismissed their  appeals holding that the Collector  was right  in treating the surplus area as an unirrigated areas  and valuing  the same  at nine  annas per standard acre.      A  single   Judge  accepting   the  contention  of  the appellant in  his writ  petition set aside the orders of the Revenue Court.  The Financial  Commissioner filed  an appeal which was  allowed  by  the  Division  Bench  and  the  writ petition was dismissed.      In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the  appellants  that  (1)  whereas  sub-section  (5)  of section 2  of the Act directed the Government to frame Rules after considering  the quantity  of the yield and quality of soil, in  the Rules framed by the Government the main guide- lines laid down by sub-section(5) were not followed, and the classification made  by the  Rules under  Annexure  ’A’  was arbitrary without  determining the quantity of the yield and quality of the soil, and (2) that even if the classification made in  Annexure ’A’  was valid, the Revenue Courts as also the High  Courts committed  an error of law in misconstruing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

the classification  and in  arbitrarily placing  the surplus area in the category of unirrigated land. 331      Dismissing the appeals, ^      HELD: 1(i)  The view  of the  single Judge  is  not  in consonance with  the scheme  and spirit  of the Rules framed under the  Act and is based on a wrong interpretation of the nature, extent  and ambit  of  the  classification  made  in Annexure ’A’.  The  classification  is  in  accordance  with provisions of  sub-section (5)  of section  2 of the Act and is, therefore, constitutionally valid. [337 E-F, G]      (ii) The  Land Resettlement  Manual prepared in 1952 by Tarlok Singh  shows that the classification has been made in a very scientific manner after taking into consideration all the relevant  factors. The  Punjab  Settlement  Manual  (4th Edition) prepared  by Sir  James M.  Douie though possessing unimpeachable authenticity  was made long ago and since then there have  been great  changes resulting from various steps taken  by  the  Government  for  improving  the  nature  and character of  the land  and the  irrigation facilities. Even so, the  classification made  by Sir  James Douie  has  been adhered to  broadly and  basically by  Tarlok Singh  in  his Manual which  forms the  pivotal foundation for the schedule containing Annexure ’A’ framed under the Rules. [335H-336 C]      (iii) The  classifications of land like barani, sailab, abi, nehri,  chahi etc.  are clearly mentioned in the Punjab Settlement Manual.  The Rule Making Authority has not in any way either  departed from  the principles  mentioned in sub- section(5)  of   section  2  of  the  Act  or  violated  the guidelines contained  therein, nor could it be said that the classification made  under  the  Rules  has  not  been  made according to  the quantity  of yield  or the  quality of the soil. [336 C, D-E]      (iv) If the dominant object of the act was to take over the surplus  area according  to  the  formula  contained  in various provisions  of the Act particularly sub-sections (3) and (5)  of section 2, there is no material on the record to show that  the Rules  do not  fulfil or carry out the object contained in the Act. [336 G]      Jagir Singh  and Ors.  v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 44 (1965) Lahore Law Times 143, approved.      2.(i) There  was no error in the classification made by the revenue  authorities. So  far  as  Karnal  District  was concerned, there  was no  sailab land  at the  time when the Rules were  framed and  the classification was made. Even if the land  in question could be treated as sailab and equated with the  land in Sonepat then the valuation would have been at 12 annas which could be more deterimental to the interest of the  appellants. The  Collector and the Commissioner have rightly treated  the land as unirrigated which is the lowest category and  whose valuation  is given  as nine  annas  per acre. [338C, B]      (ii) The three categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of  Rule 2 do not cover the land of the appellants which is sailab or adna sailab and therefore, they cannot be given the benefit  of  any  of  these  three  sub-clauses  of  the proviso. [339 A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 490 and 2228 (N) of 1970.      Appeals by  certificate from  the  Judgment  and  order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

dated 9-10-1969  & 14-1-1970  of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in  Letters Patent  Appeal Nos.  553 of  1968 & 570 of 1969 respectively. 332      Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants (In both the Appeals.)      K C.  Bhagat and R.N. Podar for the Respondent (in both the Appeals)      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. These  two appeals  by  certificate  are directed against  judgments dated  9.10.69 and  14.1.1970 of the Punjab  and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 553  of 1968  and 570  of 1969 by which the contentions raised by  the appellants  in the two appeals were rejected. After the  matter came up in this Court the two appeals were consolidated as  they arose  out of almost the same subject- matter and  involved identical  points. The facts which have given rise to these appeals lie within a very narrow compass and may be briefly summarised thus.      The appellants  were refugees  from Pakistan  and  Sant Singh Nalwa  was allotted  63 standard acres and 8/1/4 units in village  Marghain and  another area  of 19 standard acres and 5 units in Garden Colony in Jundla which were entered as sailab land  in the  revenue records.  The other  appellant, Kartar Kaur,  was allotted  96 acres, 3 bighas and 13 biswas in  the  same  district.  These  lands  were  given  to  the appellants  as   they  were  displaced  persons.  After  the appellants had  become owners  of the  lands, the  State  of Punjab passed the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred  to as  the ’Act’) which later applied to Haryana  also, under  which every  land owner  whether  a displaced person  allottee or otherwise could not retain any area of land which fell beyond the extend prescribed by sub- section (3) of s. 2 of the Act.      After the  coming into  force of  the Act  the  revenue authorities proceeded  to determine  the permissible area of the land  of both  the appellants so that the area which was found to  be in  excess may be taken over by the State after paying the compensation as provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder,  viz., The  Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953  (hereinafter called  the ’Rules’).  In order to determine the  permissible area  the  Act  contains  certain provisions by which the entire area held by a land owner has to be  converted into  standard acres  on  the  basis  of  a formula contained  in sub-section  (5) of  s. 2  of the  Act which defines ’standard acre’ thus:           "  ’Standard   acre’  means   a  measure  of  area      convertible into  ordinary acres  of any  class of land      according to the 333      prescribed scale  with reference  to  the  quantity  of      yield and quality of soil."      Similarly, the  relevant  portion  of  sub-section  5-a which defines ’Surplus Area’ may be extracted thus:           " ’Surplus  Area’ means  the area  other than  the      reserved area,  and, where  no area  has been reserved,      the area  in excess  of the  permissible area  selected      (under section  5-B or  the area  which is deemed to be      surplus area  under sub section (1) of section 5C) (and      includes the  area in  excess of  the permissible  area      selected under  section 19-B) but it will not include a      tenant’s permissible area;.. "      So  far   as  the  appellant,  Sant  Singh  Nalwa,  was concerned, the revenue authorities held that he was entitled to retain  50 (fifty)  standard acres  being the permissible

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

area and  the balance of 13 standard acres and odd units was declared as  surplus. Similarly,  in the  case of  the other appellants, Kartar  Kaur,  she  was  allowed  to  retain  50 standard acres and about 15 standard acres of land was taken over being  surplus. In  the instant  appeals, there  is  no dispute that  the formula by which the extent of the land in possession  of   the  appellants  had  been  converted  into standard acres  was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  The only  point  that  was  canvassed  before  the revenue authorities as also in the High Court centered round the question  of the  nature of  the land  and the valuation thereof for  the  purpose  of  assessing  compensation.  The appellants case  was  that  as  the  lands  which  had  been declared   surplus   or   for   that   matter   the   entire lands/allotted to  them  as  displaced  persons  fell  in  a portion of  District Karnal which was sailab and Adna sailab and therefore according to the classification made under the Rules they did not carry any valuation.      Sant Singh  Nalwa challenged  before the  Collector the validity of  declaration of  the surplus  area and contested the valuation  put by the Collector. The Collector dismissed the application  by his  order dated 13.3.1963 and held that 13 standard acres and 6 units of the land had to be declared surplus. Against  this order,  Sant Singh  filed  an  appeal before the  Additional Commissioner,  Ambala Division  where the only  point raised  by him  was that  the area  was  not correctly evaluated. His main grievance was that the area in question was  equated with  Barani land  and valuated at the rate of unirrigated area as given in the valuation statement of the  Karnal District under Annexure ’A’ of the Rules. The main contention of 334 the appellants before the Commissioner as also before us was that as  the surplus  area does  not fall  under any  of the categories mentioned in Annexure ’A’ it carried no valuation at all.  The Commissioner,  however,  dismissed  the  appeal holding that the collector was right in treating the surplus area as  an unirrigated area and valuing the same at 9 annas per standard acre.      Thereafter, the  appellant filed a writ petition before the High  Court which was allowed by the Single Judge by his order dated  July 23,  1963. The  Single Judge set aside the orders of  revenue courts and accepted the contention of the appellant. Against  this order,  the Financial  Commissioner filed an appeal under Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the  High Court  which  by  its  judgment  dated  9.10.69 allowed the  appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.      Similarly, Kartar  Kaur, the other appellant also filed an  appeal   before  the   Additional  Commissioner,  Ambala Division regarding the surplus land and having failed there, filed a  writ petition  in the High Court on 10.2.1965 which was ultimately  dismissed on  10.10.69 and  the appeal under Letters Patent  against the  said order  of the Single Judge was also dismissed on 14.1.70.      Thus, the  position is  that both the appellants failed to get  any redress  from the  High Court  which  ultimately confirmed the orders of the Revenue courts.      The learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  raised  two contentions before  us. In  the first  place, it  was argued that the Revenue courts as also the High Court were in error in holding that the surplus area was rightly evaluated in as much as  the classification  made under  the Rules was ultra vires  as  being  in  direct  disobedience  to  the  mandate contained in  sub-section (5)  of s.  2 of the Act. In other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

words, it  was argued  that whereas sub-section (5) directed the Government to frame Rules after considering the quantity of the yield and quality of soil, in the Rules framed by the Government under  its rule  making power  given to it by the Statute the  main guidelines  laid down  by sub-section  (5) were not  followed and  the classification made by the Rules under Annexure  ’A’ was  arbitrary without  determining  the quantity of  the yield and the quality of the soil. We might mention here  that this  contention appears  to  have  found favour with  the Single  Judge in the writ petition filed by the appellant,  Sant Singh  Nalwa but  the judgment  of  the Single Judge’ 335 as already  indicated, was reversed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent appeal.      Secondly,  it   was  contended   that   even   if   the classification made  in Annexure  ’A’ was valid, the Revenue courts as  also the  High Court committed an error of Law in misconstruing the  classification and in arbitrarily placing the surplus area in the category of unirrigated land.      Coming now  to the first point raised by the appellants regarding the  constitutionality of  the Rules  framed under the Act,  after hearing  the counsel for the parties we find no merit in this contention. Sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act  merely requires  that the  Rule should classify the land according  to the  quantity of the yield and quality of the soil.  The Rules have classified the land by preparing a schedule consisting  of various  Annexures which  divide the lands according  to the quantity of yield and quality of the soil into  various categories. A perusal of the Annexures to the Rules clearly shows that the valuation statement and the class  of   land  has  been  described  not  only  as  being applicable to  one place  or the  other but  in view  of the entire  topography  of  every  district  or  tehsil,  it  is manifest that  in a  peculiar State  like Punjab and Haryana diverse factors,  namely, the  situation or  position of the land, its  nearness to the river, the irrigation facilities, the ravages  of flood,  the fertility  of the  land and  its produce and  various other  similar circumstances have to be taken into  consideration  in  determining  the  nature  and character  of  the  land.  As  far  back  as  1952,  a  Land Resettlement Manual  was prepared by Tarlok Singh, which was relied upon  by the  judgment of  the Single Judge and at p. 287 the land has been classified in following categories:      "Chahi and Abi      Chahi      Nehri      Unirrigated      Nehri Non-Perennial or other Nehri      or Nehri-Inundation"      This classification  varies from  District to  District and Tarlok Singh has also given the approximate value of the land. After  going through  the Land  Resettlement Manual we find that  the  classification  has  been  made  in  a  very scientific  manner   after  taking  into  consideration  the relevant factors.  Even Sir  James M.  Douie in  his  Punjab Settlement Manual (4th Edition), which is undoubtedly a work of 336 unimpeachable authenticity,  as pointed  out by  the  Single Judge, had  made a classification which is almost similar to the one  made by  Tarlok Singh. It is, however, obvious that the Punjab  Settlement Manual by Sir Douie was made long ago and since  then there have been great changes resulting from various steps  taken by  the Government  for  improving  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

nature  and   character  of  the  land  and  the  irrigation facilities. It is, therefore, not possible for us to rely on the Manual  prepared by  Sir Douie  as the  Single Judge had done because that would not be an objective assessment. Even so, the  classification made  by Sir  James Douie  has  been adhered to  broadly and  basically by  Tarlok Singh  in  his Manual which  forms the  pivotal foundation for the schedule containing  Annexure   ’A’  framed   under  the  Rules.  The classification of  land like  barani,  sailab,  abi,  nehri, chahi, etc.,  are clearly  mentioned  in  para  259  of  Sir James’s Punjab  Settlement Manual  which Sarkaria, J., as he than was,  rightly classed  as the  Bible  of  Land  Revenue Settlement. The point, however, that has to be considered in this case  is whether  the rule  making authority has in any way departed  from  the  mandate  given  or  the  guidelines contained in  the Act.  There does  not  appear  to  be  any material to  show that  the Rule Making Authority has in any way either  departed from  the principles  mentioned in sub- section (5)  of s.  2 of  the Act or violated the guidelines contained therein. The appellants were not able to show that the classification  made under  the Rules  has not been made according to the quantity of the yield or the quality of the soil. Neither  any  affidavit  nor  any  document  has  been produced before the courts below to prove this fact. In this state of  the evidence the Single Judge was not justified in striking down the Rules as being ultra  vires.      Moreover, it  is obvious that the Rules were made under section 27  of the  Act which  authorises the  Government to make rules  for carrying out the purposes of the Act. If the dominant object of the Act was to take over the surplus area according to  the formula contained in various provisions of the Act  particularly sub sections (3) and (5) of s.2, there is no  material on  the record to show that the Rules do not fulfil or  carry  out  the  object  contained  in  the  Act. Moreover, in Jagir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. a  Division  Bench  of  the  Punjab  High  Court  while considering a  similar contention rejected the argument that the Annexure  framed under  the Rules  was bad as it did not consider the nature 337 and quality  of the  Soil. In  this connection, the Division Bench observed thus:-           "It  is  thus  clear  that  the  formation  of  an      assessment circle  necessarily takes into consideration      the various factors mentioned by the learned author and      those include  the nature of soil and its quality apart      from various  other factors  affecting the  yield.  The      circumstance therefore,  that in the Annexure the State      of Punjab has been split up into assessment circles, as      determined at  the time  of the  Settlement, is  highly      significant, and  leaves no  doubt that  Settlement, is      highly significant  and leaves no doubt that the nature      and the  quality of  the soil inherent in the formation      of  an   assessment  circle   have  been   taken   into      consideration for  valuing the land for purposes of its      conversion into  standard acres.  At the same time, the      existing sources of irrigation have all been taken into      consideration. It  is, in the circumstances, impossible      to agree  that the  Annexure in any manner violates the      direction contained  in the  Punjab  Security  of  Land      Tenures Act.           We are, in the circumstances, unable to agree that      the disputed  rule and  Annexure ’A’  attached  to  the      Rules are  ultra vires  the  Punjab  Security  of  Land      Tenures Act."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

    We  find  ourselves  in  complete  agreement  with  the observations made  by the  High Court  and endorse the same. With due  respect, the view taken by Sarkaria J., as he then was (the  single Judge in the instant case) is not at all in consonance with  the scheme  and spirit  of the Rules framed under the  Act and is based on a wrong interpretation of the nature extent  and  ambit  of  the  classification  made  in annexure ’A’.      We  therefore  fully  agree  with  the  Division  Bench judgment of  the High  Court that  the classification  is in accordance with the provisions of sub section (5) of s. 2 of the Act  and is therefore, constitutionally valid. The first contention put  forward by the counsel for the appellants is therefore overruled.      Coming now  to the  second contention  that even if the classification is  correct,  the  revenue  authorities  were wrong in treating the surplus land in dispute as unirrigated area. We  find no  substance in  this argument. The relevant Annexure which  gives the surplus land in District Karnal is to be  found at  page 308  of the  compilation of  Punjab  & Haryana Local Acts (vol VII) where while lands 338 classified as  Chahi, Abi, Nehri, Unirrigated and Nehri/Non- perennial are  mentioned, there  is no  mention of sailab or adna sailab  lands. Whereas  at page  306 in the same volume there is  no sailab  land except in tehsil Sonepat. Thus, it appears that  so far  as Karnal  District is concerned there was no  sailab land  at the  time when the Rules were framed and the  classification  was  made.  Even  if  the  land  in question could  be treated  as sailab  and equated  with the land in  Sonepat then  the valuation  would have  been at 12 annas as  shown at  p. 306  of the aforesaid compilation, in which case  this would  be more detrimental to the interests of the  appellants. The  Collector and the Commissioner have therefore rightly  treated the  land as unirrigated which is almost the lowest category and whose valuation is given as 9 annas  per  acre.  We,  therefore,  find  no  error  in  the classification made by the revenue authorities.      We are  unable  to  agree  with  the  counsel  for  the appellants that  as the land in question did not fall in any of the  heads of classification made in District Karnal they will carry  no value at all because this is directly opposed to the  various schemes of the classification made under the Rules. A  subsidiary contention  in this  very argument  was that the  land should  have been  valued in  accordance with Rule 2, provisos (a) to (c), which may be extracted thus:           "2. Conversion  of ordinary  acres  into  standard      acres.  The  Equivalent,  in  standard  acres,  of  one      ordinary acre  of any  class of  land in any assessment      circle, shall  be determined  by dividing  by  16,  the      valuation shown in Annexure ’A’ to these rules for such      class of land in the said assessment circle;           Provided that the valuation shall be-      (a)  in the  case of Banjar Qadim land, one-half of the           value of  the class  previously described  in  the           records and  in the  absence of any specific class           being stated,  one-half of the value of the lowest           barani land.      (b)  in the  case of Banjar Jadid land, seven-eighth of           the  value  of  the  relevant  class  of  land  as           previously entered  in  the  records,  or  in  the           absence of  specified class  in the records of the           lowest barani land; and      (c)  in the  case of  cultivated thur  land subject  to           waterlogging, one-eighth of the value of the class

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

         of land  shown in the records or in the absence of           any class, of the lowest barani land." 339      The three  categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) as extracted  above do  not at  all cover  the land  of  the appellants which is sailab or adna sailab and therefore they cannot be  given the  benefit of  any of  these  three  sub- clauses of  the  proviso.  For  these  reasons,  the  second contention is overruled.      The result  is that  we find  no merit  in the  appeals which are  accordingly dismissed  but in  the  circumstances without any order as to costs. N.V.K.                                    Appeals dismissed. 340