http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JIWAN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/10/1975

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1976 AIR   63            1976 SCR  (1) 210  1976 SCC  (1)  99

ACT:      Punjab  Security  of  Land  Tenures  Act,  1953-Proviso (ii)(a) to  Section  2(3)-Maximum  permissible  area  for  a displaced person  in terms  of Standard  Acres  or  ordinary acres, determination  of-Meaning of  the phrase "as the case may be".

HEADNOTE:      The respondent,  a displaced  person from  Pakistan was allotted 55-80  Standard Acres  of land  in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. While determining the surplus area, the appellant State interpreting the phrase "as the case may be" in  proviso  (ii)(a)  to  Section  2(3)  of  the  Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, left with the respondent 100 ordinary  acres equivalent  to 29.81  Standard Acres and treated 25.99  standard acres  equivalent to  78.57 ordinary acres  as   surplus.  The  respondent  preferred  an  appeal contending that the surplus should be 5.80 standard acres on a true  interpretation of  the proviso,  which  failed.  The revision before the Financial Commissioner met with the same fate. The  contention of  the respondent  was upheld  by the High Court  while allowing  the Writ  Petition filed by him. The Letters  Patent Appeal filed by the State was dismissed. On an  appeal by  special leave, the Court, while dismissing it, ^      HELD: (i)  The contention  that the  words "as the case may  be"  in  proviso  (ii)(a)  to  section  2(3),  gives  a discretion to  the authorities  to determine the permissible area either in standard or in ordinary acres is not correct. [212-B-C]      (ii) On a plain reading, proviso (ii)(a) indicates that where the  land  allotted  to  a  displaced  person  was  in standard acres  and its area exceeded 50 standard acres, the permissible area  would be  50 standard acres, and where the land was  allotted not  in standard  acres, the  permissible area would be 100 ordinary acres. The nature of the original allotment-whether it  was in  standard acres  or in ordinary acres-is the determinating factor. [212-C-D]      (iii) The  meaning given to proviso (ii)(a) by the Full Bench of  the Punjab  & Haryana High Court, in Khan Chand v. State of  Punjab A.I.R.  1966 Punjab  423, is  correct It is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

only construed  this way that the words "as the case may be" acquire  a   significance,  otherwise  they  would  be  mere surplusage. [212-D-E]      Khan Chand  v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1966 Punjab 423, approved.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 852 of 1968.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  9th August,  1967 of  the Punjab  & Haryana  High Court in L.P. A. No. 199/67.      Naunit Lal and R. N. Sachthey for the Appellants.      Madan Bhatia for Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GUPTA, J. The respondent Jiwan Singh who is a displaced person from  Pakistan was  allotted 55.80  standard acres of land in  village Neza  Dali Kalan  in Sirsa Tehsil of Hissar District in lieu of the land left by 211 him in  Pakistan. The  second appellant,  Collector  Surplus Area, Sirsa,  in determining  the  surplus  area  under  the Punjab Security  of  Land  Tenures  Act,  1953  (hereinafter referred to  as the  Act) left  only 100 ordinary acres with the respondent as his permissible area and declared the rest of the  land measuring  78.57 ordinary  acres, equivalent to 25.99  standard  acres,  as  surplus.  Permissible  Area  as defined in sec. 2(3) of the Act is as follows:           "Permissible area"  in relation to a land owner or      a tenant,  means thirty  standard acres  and where such      thirty standard  acres on being converted into ordinary      acres exceed sixty acres, such sixty acres:           Provided that-      (i)  no area  under an  orchard at  the commencement of           this Act, shall be taken into account in computing           the permissible area:      (ii) for a displaced person-           (a)  who has been allotted land in excess of fifty                standard acres, the permissible area shall be                fifty standard  acres or one hundred ordinary                acres, as the case may be.           (b)  who has  been  allotted  land  in  excess  of                thirty standard  acres, but  less than  fifty                standard acres, the permissible area shall be                equal to his allotted area.           (c)  who has  been allotted  land less than thirty                standard acres, the permissible area shall be                thirty standard  acres, including  any  other                land or part thereof, if any, that he owns in                addition." There is  an explanation  to this  definition which  is  not relevant for  the present purpose. Surplus Area would be the area in  excess of  the permissible  area. According  to the respondent the  surplus area  in his case cannot exceed 5.80 standard acres in view of the proviso (ii) (a) to sec. 2(3), and being  aggrieved by the order of the Collector preferred an appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner remanded the case to  the Collector  for a  fresh  determination  of  the respondent’s surplus  area observing  that in  the case of a displaced person  if the allotment was in standard acres, 50 standard acres  would be  the permissible  area and  if  the allotment was  in ordinary  acres the permissible area would be 100  ordinary acres.  On remand  the Collector upheld his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

own previous  order and  the appeal  taken by the respondent from this  order was  dismissed  by  the  Commissioner.  The respondent filed  a revision  petition before  the Financial Commissioner, Punjab,  who also  upheld  the  order  of  the Collector  and   dismissed  the   petition.  The  respondent thereafter filed  a writ petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court which  was allowed.  The learned  Judge who  heard the writ petition  held following  a full  Bench decision of the same High  Court, Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, (1) that it was "not legitimate for the authority to treat as surplus 212 area  anything   more  than   5.80  standard  acres  of  the petitioner’s land".  The  Letters  Patent  appeal  preferred against the  decision of  the learned  single Judge  by  the State of  Haryana and the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa, was dismissed. The  correctness of  the High Court’s decision is challenged before us in this appeal by special leave.      The case  turns on the true meaning of proviso (ii) (a) to sec.  2(3). Counsel  for the appellants submits that this provision means  that the  permissible area  in the  case of displaced persons  who were  allotted land  in excess  of 50 standard acres can be determined either in terms of standard acres or  in terms  of  ordinary  acres,  as  the  authority concerned chooses.  Counsel contends  that the words "as the case may  be" refer  to the  discretion of  the authority in this matter.  We do  not find  it possible  to  accept  this contention. There is no specific provision in the Act giving a discretion  to the  Collector or any other authority under the Act  to determine  the permissible  area for a displaced person was  in standard  acres or  in ordinary  acres. On  a plain reading  proviso (ii) (a) seems to indicate that where the land  allotted to  a displaced  person was  in  standard acres  and   its  area   exceeded  50  standard  acres,  the permissible area  would be  50 standard acres, and where the land was allotted not in standard acres the permissible area would be  100 ordinary  acres. The  nature of  the  original allotment-whether it  was in  standard acres  or in ordinary acres-seems to  be the  determining factor.  The Full  Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Khan Chand v. State of  Punjab (supra), on which the Judgment under appeal relies, reads proviso (ii) (a) to mean:           "For a displaced person who has been allotted land      in excess  of 50  standard acres  or in  excess of 100-      ordinary  acres   the  permissible  area  shall  be  50      standard acres  or 100  ordinary acres, as the case may      be." We agree  that this  is the  correct meaning  to be given to this provisions;  it is  only construed  this way  that  the words "as the case may be" acquire a significance, otherwise they would  be mere  surplusage.  Clauses  (b)  and  (c)  of proviso (ii)  lend assurance  to this  construction. Clauses (b) deals  with the  case of a displaced person who has been allotted land  in excess  of thirty  standard acres but less than fifty  standard acres and provides that the permissible and in  his case shall be equal to his allotted area. Clause (c) fixes  the permissible  area for  a displaced person who has been  allotted land  less  than  thirty  standard  acres providing that  it shall  be thirty standard acres including any other  land or  part thereof,  if any,  that he  owns in addition. Clauses (b) and (c) both deal with cases where the original allotment  was in  standard  acres,  and  there  is nothing in  either of them sanctioning the conversion of the permissible area  in standard  acres  into  ordinary  acres, though perhaps any other land which a displaced person whose case in  covered by  clause (c) might own in addition to the

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

30 standard  acres allotted  to him may be in ordinary acres requiring conversion  of such  land into  standard acres  to determine the permissible area in standard acres in his case as provided  in clause  (c). But this does not mean that the permissible area in cases covered by clauses (b) and (c) can also be fixed 213 in ordinary  acres. Proviso  (ii) to  sec. 2(3)  appears  to group displaced  persons into two categories, those who were allotted land  in standard  acres and  those whose allotment was in  ordinary acres.  Clause (a)  deals with  both  these categories and limits the permissible area of those who were allotted land  in standard  acres at  50 standard  acres and those who  were allotted  land  in  ordinary  acres  at  100 ordinary acres; clauses (b) and (c) deal only with those who were allotted  land in standard acres. Those whose allotment was in  ordinary acres,  their permissible  area is fixed at 100 such acres, but those who were allotted land in standard acres, in their case the permissible area varies as provided in clauses  (a), (b) and (c) though the measure in each case would be  in standard  acres. This appears to be the scheme. In defining "Permissible area" sec. 2(3) of the Act provides differently for  land owners  and  tenants  covered  by  the substantive part  of the  definition, and  displaced persons mentioned in  proviso (ii),  and also  makes  a  distinction between displaced  persons  inter  se  as  provided  in  the different clauses  of the proviso. In the course of argument questions were  raised about  the  logical  basis  for  such differentiation, but  the policy  of the  Act being clear we have to  interpret the  provision as we find it; if there is any anomaly  in the policy itself, it is for the legislature to remove that defect. In this case the land allotted to the respondent  being   admittedly  55.80  standard  acres,  the permissible area  for him  would be  50 standard acres under clause (a)  and that  being so,  the High Court was right in holding that  it was  not legitimate  for the  authority  to treat as  surplus area  anything  more  than  5.80  standard acres.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   dismissed  but  in  the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 214