http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAMPURAN SINGH ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/09/1975

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. GUPTA, A.C. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1952            1976 SCR  (1) 626  1975 SCC  (2) 810

ACT:      Construction of  Statutes-Interpretation of land reform statutes  or   agrarian  laws-Construction  to  promote  the general purpose  of the  act-Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953-Section  10A and  19B-Validity  of  the  Transfers reducing surplus lands.

HEADNOTE:      The respondents  were  small  land  owners  within  the meaning of  Punjab Securrity of’ Land Tenures Act, 1953. The respondents, later on inherited certain lands which together with the  lands already  held by  them exceeded  the ceiling area. The  respondents, therefore,  ceased to be small land- owners. The  respondents thereafter  divested themselves  of the excess  lands by  executing  gift  deed,  mortgage  with possession and pursuant to decrees passed in favour of their near relations.  The Collector  after investigating into the matter declared  the lands  in excess of the ceiling area as surplus lands  and  ignored  the  subsequent  transfers.  An appeal  filed   by  the  respondents  was  rejected  by  the Commissioner.  Respondents   Revision  Applications  to  the Financial Commissioner were also rejected.      The respondents  thereafter filed Writ Petitions in the High Court.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  Writ  Petitions holding that  section 19B  read with  section  10A  did  not affect the  transfers made  by the respondents. According to High  Court   the  transfers   affected  during  the  period prescribed for  filing returns  are valid  since  they  were consistent with  the scheme  of’ the act which requires that no one should hold land in excess of permissible limits.      Section 2(2)  of the  Act defines small land owner as a person owning  less than  certain area  of land. Permissible area is  defined limiting  the maximum  permissible extent a person may  hold land.  So long  as a  person does  not hold lands in  excess of  permissible area  he is  a  small  land holder. He can evict  his tenants from the holding and be in actual enjoyment  as provided  by the Act. If any person has lands beyond  the permissible  area he  becomes a large land owner and he has to surrender the excess land after choosing the best  area he  desires to keep. Such excess land goes to the surplus pool which is distributed for the rehabilitation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

of ejected tenants and landless persons. The Act was amended by inserting  section 10A and Section 19B with retrospective effect.  Section  10A  provides  that  for  the  purpose  of determining the  surplus area  of any  person any  judgment, decree or  order of a Court or authority contained after the commencement of the Act and having the effect of diminishing the area  of such  person which  could have been declared as his surplus area shall be ignored.      Section 19B provides that if after the commencement, of the Act  any person whether as land owner or tenant acquires by inheritance  or by  bequest or gift from a person to whom he is an heir or if any person after the commencement of the Act acquires  in any other manner any land and which with or without the  lands already  owned or. held by him exceeds in the aggregate the permissible area such a person is required to file  a return  with the Collector in the prescribed form giving the  necessary particulars and selecting the land not exceeding the  permissible area  which he desires to retain. The section further provides that the surplus land in excess of the  permissible area  would  be  distributed  among  the tenants who are evicted or landless persons.      On an  appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(c) in one appeal  and in  an appeal  by Special  Leave in  another allowing the appeals held ^      1.  Land   reform  is   so   strategic   that   special constitutional concern  has been   shown for this programme. The State  naturally enacted the Act whereby ceiling on land ownership  was  set.  surplus  lands  were  taken  over  for settling ejected  tenants and  others.  If  constitutionally envisioned socio-economic revolution is 627 not  to  be  a  paper  tiger,  agrarian  lands  have  to  be meaningfully enacted, interpreted and executed and the Court is not the anti-hero of the Drama of limping land reform.      The decision  of this Court in Amar Singh’s case A.I.R. 1974 SC 994, 996 followed. [628 B-C 631 A]      2. It  is settled  law that  Courts  should  favour  an interpretation that  promotes the  general purpose of an Act rather than one that does not. [634-E]      3. The agrarian reform laws with special constitutional status, as it were warrant interpretative skills which, will stiffle the  evasive attempts, specialty by way of gifts and bequests and suspect transfers. [635 C-D]      4. The  profound concern  of the  law to  preserve  the surplus stock  is  manifest  from  the  obligation  cast  by section  19B  to  declare  and  deliver  excess  lands.  The agrarian  policy  is  equitable  ownership  and  the  reform philosophy is  redistributive justice,  the rural goal being small peasant  proprietorship. What  difference does it make as to  how you  came by  a large holding from the standpoint above outline  ? The  thrust of  section 19B is that even if the source  of the  excess area  is inheritance.  bequest or gift the  capacity to  own is conditioned by the permissible limit. Section  10A does not militate against the mandate of section 19B.  Section 19B had to be enacted because the High Court took  the view  that the  area  which  became  surplus subsequent to the commencement of the Act was not hit by the ceiling and land acquired by an heir by inheritance is saved from utilisation by the State. [633H-634A-C]      5. The  reasoning of  the High Court that the scheme of the Act  was that  no one  should held land in excess of the permissible area and since after the transfers the land held by the respondent was within permissible limits there was no frustration of  the policy  of the  law is  repugnant to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

basic scheme  because the  Surplus pool  would be  adversely affected if  gifts and  other transfers which would skim off surplus were to be allowed. A legislation which has provided for ignoring  decrees  diminishing  surplus  lands  and  has otherwise prevented  the escape  of excess area by voluntary transfers cannot conceivably be intended to permit inherited excesses. [634-F-G]      6. The  further reasoning  of the High Court that since section 19B  gives to  the owner who by inheritance comes to own an excess area. a certain time for making a declaration, that during  this period land owner can effect transfers, is obviously absurd.  What is intended to give some time to the heir to  ascertain the  assets he  has inherited,  make  the choice of  his reserved area which he likes to keep and make the necessary declaration. The processual facility cannot be converted into  an opportunity  to prevert  and  thwart  the substantive object  of the  law. After all courts faced with special  case   situations,  have  creatively  to  interpret legislation [634 H; 635 A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 123 of 1969 and 2023 of 1972.      From the Judgment and order dated the 25th October 1967 of the  Punjab and  Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 525 of 1966 and Civil Appeal No. 2023 of 1972.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the order dated the 20th May, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 231 of 1970.      Naunit Lal and R. N. Sachthey for the Appellant in both the appeals.      N. N.  Goswamy and Arvind Minocha for the Respondent in C.A 123 of 1969.      O. P. Sharma for Respondent No. 1 (In C.A. 2023/72).      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA  IYER,   J.  These  two  appeals  turn  on  the construction of  s. 19B  of  the  Punjab  Security  of  Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act X of 628 1953) (for  short, the Act). This legislation was enacted to bring   about an  agrarian re-ordering  so  pivotal  to  the progress of our rural economy. Haryana, happily a granary of our country, is one of the States where land reform laws are likely  to   generate  great   changes  by   banishing   big concentration of  Natur’s bounty  in  a  few  feudal  hands, creating an  enthusiastic sense  of distributive justice and exploiting  the   productive  potential   of  land   by  the possessive passion  of the  landless many.  So strategic  is land reform  that special  constitutional concern  has  been shown for  this programme.  Naturally the  State enacted the Act whereby ceiling on land-ownership was set; surplus lands were taken  over for settling ejected tenants and others and peasant proprietorship  created. The  scheme of the Act with which  we  are  concerned  is  fairly  simple  and  somewhat scientific,  although   its  language,  what  with  frequent amendments dovetailed  from  time  to  time,  has  made  for ambiguity, obscurity, marginal inconsistency and a rich crop of litigation.  Indeed, the  conflict of opinion at the High Court level  and the bone of contention before us arise from this drafting deficiency Legal Preface:      A  thumb-nail   sketch  of   the  Act  is  a  prefatory necessity. the  defines ’small  land-owner’ [S. 2(2)] having

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

in mind  the optimum  ownership  in  the  given  conditions. ’Permissible area’  [s. 2(3)]  is a cognate concept limiting the maximum  permissible extent  a person  may hold,  and so long as  he  does  not  have  any  excess,  he  is  a  small landholder. He can evict the tenants from his holding and be in actual  enjoyment as provided by the Act. If, however, he has lands  beyond the  permissible area,  he becomes a large land-owner and  has to  cough up  the excess. However, he is given the  option to  choose there  best area  he desires to keep, called ’reserved area’ [s. 2(4)] and then he must make available to  the State  such excess called surplus area [s. 2(5-a)]. This  creation of  a surplus  pool or  reservoir is vital to  the success  of the  statutory project  since,  by distribution  of   such  lands,  rehabilitation  of  ejected tenants  and   landless  persons  is  to  be  "accomplished. Maximisation of  the surplus pool and suppression of evasion by large holders are of profound legislative, concern.      Even if  a person is a small holder, it is quite on the cards that,  by inheritance or other operation of law, or by voluntary transfer,  he may  acquire lands  in excess of the permissible limit.  The law  takes care  to  see  that  such excess is  also made available for re-settlement of ejectees and their  ilk. In  short, the  legislative mandate  is that every agricultural  holder in  the State  shall hold no more than the  permissible area  and the  surplus in the hands of large holders, whether acquired by voluntary transactions or involuntary operation  of law,  will go  to feed the surplus pool.      A semi-medieval  set-up where  considerable estates are cornered by  a landed  gentry,  will  naturally  resist  re- distributive reform  measures and  try ingenious methodology to defeat  the law.  But the  legislature has  to be  astute enough  to   outwit  such   devious   devices   and   subtle subterfuges. With this end in view, the Act has been amended to block  all escape  routes unearthed  by the law-makers as often as the High 629 Court has upheld certain patterns of alienations and oblique dealings by  interpretative process.  A study of the history of  the  Act  and  the  provocation  for  and  frequency  of amendments thereto,  suggests an  unspoken  criticism  about judicial approach  which we  will refer to later. Suffice it to say  that the law we are construing is a radical agrarian measure; its  basic goals are to cut down large holdings and distribute lands  to various  landless people according to a design and  to foster,  according to  legislative policy, an agrarian community  of peasant  proprietors. De-hoarding and defeating hide-outs  are essential  to make the twin objects successful and  so ss.  10A and  19B among others, have been written into  the Act.  To explore  the import  and ambit of these two  provisions, particularly  the former, with a view to see  whether it strikes at a gift made by, the respondent in. favour  of his  sons whereby he sought to stow away some of his lands, shed some of his excess lands and look slim on as a  small holder  before the  law Language  permiting, the Court  as   interpretor,  must  fulfil,  not  frustrate  the legislative mission. Factual Silhouette      At this stage it is appropriate to set out the facts in the two  appeals which  are not  in dispute  and  speak  for themselves. C.A. 123 of 1969:      One Sampuran Singh who owned 450 bighas and 9 biswas of land, acting with foresight, gifted half of it to his mother in 1951,  perhaps with  a premonition of coming restrictions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

by way  of ceiling  on owner  ship. We need not speculate on that point  in the  light of  subsequent happenings. The Act came into  force on April 15, 1953 but even before that date the. Owner  (who was  the petitioner  before the  High Court under Art. 226 and respondent before us) executed a mortgage with possession  over 12 bighas and 5 biswas. There was also some waste  land included  in his  total holding  which fell outside the  scope of  the Act. So much so, on the date when the Act  came into  force, he  was the  owner of  about  178 bighas  which,   admittedly,  fell   safely  short   of  the permissible area of 30 standard acres [vide s. 2(3)]. Having thus dwarfed  himself into  a small land owner as defined in s. 2(2),  the ’ceiling’ provision held out no threat to him. Certain small  extents of land which were legally deductible from  his  total  holding  brought  down  the  area  in  his possession to  138 odd  bighas. Unfortunately  for him,  his mother passed  away in February 1958 and, he being the heir, all that  he had  gifted to  her earlier came back to him as successor. The  unhappy consequence  was  that  his  holding expanded to 363 odd bighas, far in excess of the permissible area as  set out  in s.  2(3) of  the Act. Necessarily, this spill-over became  surplus area  as in s. 2(5-a) of the Act. Sensing the  imminent peril  to his property and manoeuvring to salvage  it from  the clutches  of the  legal ceiling the petitioner executed  a gift of 182 bighas of land to his son by deed  dated February  11, 1959.  He also  executed  three mortgages with  possession. The  cumulative  result  of  the shedding operations was to shrink the size of his holding to well within  the permissible  area. The  Collector, however, investigat 630 ed into  the matter  and declared  an area  of 117 bighas as surplus in his hands. He reached this conclusion by ignoring the tell-tale  gift of February 1, 1959 in favour of the son and the  three possessory  mortgages executed  in June 1958. The status  of ’small  land-owner’ thus being forfeited, the threat lo  the surplus  lands revived  but was  sought lo be warded off  by the  petitioner moving an unsuccessful appeal Lo the Commissioner, and a further fruitless revision to the Financial  Commissioner.   Eventually,  he   challenged  the Collector’s order  i Writ  Petition which, met with success. There was disagreement between the two learned Judges on the Bench and  the third  learned Judge decided in favour of the petitioner holding  that s.  19B, read  with s  10A. did not affect the  petitioner’s transfers.  The two  Judges,  whose opinion upheld  the claim  of the  petitioner, substantially concurred  in   their  reasonings   but  the  scope  of  the interpretative exercise. is somewhat limited. We, therefore, propose  straight  to  go  into  a  study  of  the  relevant provisions  and  may  perhaps  indicate  our  conclusion  in advance. We  wholly disagree  with the  High Court  and hold that to  accept the  construction which  has appealed to the learned Judges is to frustrate the agrarian reform scheme of the Act  and the  alternative reading gives life to the law, teeth to its provisions and fulfilment to its soul.      C.A. 2023  of  1972:  The  facts  in  this  appeal  are different but  the point  of law  involved is  identical. In both the  cases the  State of  Haryana has  come up  to this Court in  appeal,  the  former  by  certificate  under  Art. 133(1)(c) and  the latter  by special  leave granted by this Court. Anyway,  in C.A. 2023 of 1972, respondent no. 1 owned 86 odd ordinary acres of land on April 15, 1953 when the Act came into  force. After  the  commencement  of  the  Act  he inherited nearly  30 ordinary  acres and  thus he  held well above the  permissible area  and ceased  to be  a small land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

owner. Around  the year  1957 he  transferred 167  bighas of land to  respondents nos.  3 to  6 pursuant to a Civil Court decree passed  in 1957  in favour  of his sons and wife.  We may mention here, parenthetically but pathetically, that the weapons in  the armoury  of large  land owners to defeat the land reform  law included  securing simulactral decrees from civil courts  against themselves  in favour  of their  close relations, thus  using the  judicial process  to have. their excess lands  secreted in  the names of their dear and near. This invited  legislative attention  and an amendment of the Act was  made viz.,  s. 10A  whereby decrees  and orders  of courts were  to be  ignored in  dealing with  surplus lands. Thus, the  Collector ignoring  the transfer of 167 bighas of land by  respondent no.  1 (which  resulted ill  civil court decrees of  1957 in  favour of  his sons  and wife  declared 38.41 ordinary  acres as  surplus with respondent no. 1. The statutory. remedies  did not see the first respondent (writ- petitioner) safe  ashore and  so  he  sought  harbourage  by moving the  High Court under Art. 26 where he urged that the land inherited  by him and later transferred to his sons and wife were  not hit  by s.  10A and  s. 19B  of  the  Act  He succeded  in   the  Court   in  view  of  a  certain  strict construction adopted  by the Court and the State has come up in appeal  challenging the  soundness of  the  High  Court’s approach. 631 Statutory Construction:      The key-thought  that pervades  our approach is that if the constitutionally envisioned socio-economic revolution is not  to   be  a  paper  tiger,  agrarian  laws  have  to  be meaningfully enacted, interpreted and executed and the court is not  the anti-hero  in the  drama of limping land reform. Much to  the same effect this Court observed in Amar Singh’s Case(1):           "We have  to ’bear  in mind  the activist,  though      inarticulate, major  premise of  statutory construction      that the rule of law must run close to the rule of life      and the  court must  read into  an enactment,  language      permitting, that  meaning which  promotes the benignant      intent of  the legislation  in preference  to  the  one      which perverts  the scheme  of the  statute on  imputed      legislative  presumptions  and  assumed  social  values      valid in a prior era. An aware court, in formed of this      adaptation in  the rules  of  forensic  interpretation,      hesitates to nullify the plain object of a land reforms      law unless  compelled by  its language, and the crux of      this case is just that accent when double possibilities      in the chemistry of construction crop up." While dealing  with a  somewhat analogous  set of provisions under the  same Act.  The emphatic  importance of augmenting the surplus  pool for  distribution by  the State is brought out in Amar Singh (supra) thus:           "The  triple   objects  of   the  agrarian  reform      projected by  the  Act  appear  to  be  (a)  to  impart      security of  tenure (b)  to make  the tiller the owner,      and (c)  to trim  large land  holdings,  setting  sober      ceilings. To  convert these  political slogans and into      legal realities,  to combat the evil of mass evictions,      to create  peasant proprietorships  and to  ensure even      distribution of  land ownerships a statutory scheme was      fashioned the  cornerstone of which was the building up      of  a  reservoir  of  land  carved  out  of  the  large      landholdings and  made available for utilisation by the      State for re-settling ejected tenants." (p. 998) Unfortunately, judicial decisions construing the language of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

the law  have resulted  in stultifying the objectives of the enactment leading to further amendments. We are concerned in the present  case with ss. 10A and 19B which, in their final form, appeared  by an  amendment of  1962 (Act XIV of 1962), but retrospective  effect was  given with  effect  from  the commencement of the Act, viz., April 1953.      In  this  context  it  is  convenient  to  excerpt  the observations of this Court in Amar Singh (supra) at p. 999:      (1) A.I.R.. 1974 S.C. 994, 996. 632           "The objects and reasons of Punjab Act 14 of 1962,      which brought  in certain  significant restrictions  on      alienations  and  acquisitions  of  large  land-holders      starts off in the statement of objects thus:           "Some of  the recent  judicial pronouncements have      the effect  of defeating  the objectives with which the      Punjab Security  of Land Tenures Act, 1953, was enacted      and   amended from  time to  time. It was intended that      the surplus  area of  every land-owner recorded as such      in the  revenue records  should be  made utilisable for      the settlement of ejected tenants."           Certain specific decisions and their impact on the      legislative operation  were  mentioned,  and  then  the      statement of objects proceeded:           "In order  to evade the provisions of section 10-A      of the  Parent Act interested persons, being relations,      have obtained  decrees of  courts for  diminishing  the      surplus area.  Clause (43  of the Bill seeks to provide      that such  decrees should  be ignored  in computing the      surplus area." The short  point which confronts us in both these appeals is as to  whether the  gifts made  by land-owners  who exceeded their permissible  area having  come by  additional lands by inheritance are  to be  ignored or  taken into  account when computing the  surplus area in their hands, having regard to the specific  provision in  s. 19B living in fellowship with s. 10-A.      It is  appropriate to read ss. 10A and 19B here, before proceeding to the crucial discussion in the case:           10-A.-(a) The  State Government  or any officer em      powered by  it in  this behalf  shall be  competent  to      utilize  any  surplus  area  for  the  resettlement  of      tenants ejected,  or to be ejected, under clause (i) of      sub-section (1) or section 9.           (b)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any      other law  for the time being ill force and save in the      case of land acquired by the State Government under any      law for  the time  being in  force or  by  an  heir  by      inheritance no  transfer or  other disposition  of land      which is  comprised in surplus area at the commencement      of this  Act, shall  affect the  utilization thereof in      clause (a)           Explanation.-such utilization  of any surplus area      will not  affect the  right of the landowner to receive      rent from the tenant so settled.           (c) For  the purposes  of determining  the surplus      area of  any person  under this  section, any judgment,      decree or order of a court or other authority, obtained      after the  commencement of  this  Act  and  having  the      effect of  diminishing the  area of  such person  which      could have  been declared  as his surplus area shall be      ignored." 633 "19B. Future  acquisition of  land by inheritance, in excess of permissible area.-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

         (1) Subject to the provisions of s. 10-A, if after      the commencement  of this  Act, any  person, whether as      land-owner or  tenant, acquires  any inheritance  or by      bequest or  gift from  :. person  to whom he is an heir      any land, or in after the  commencement of this Act and      before the  30th of  July, 1958, any person acquires by      transfer, exchange,  lease, agreement or settlement any      land,  or  if,  after  such  commencement,  any  person      acquires in any other manner any land and which with or      without the  lands already owned or held by him exceeds      in the  aggregate the  permissible area,  then he shall      within the period prescribed, furnish to the Collector,      a return  in the  prescribed form and manner giving the      particulars of  all lands  and selecting  the land  not      exceeding in  the aggregate  the permissible area which      he desires to retain, and if the land of such person is      situated in  more than one patwar circle, he shall also      furnish a declaration required by section 5-A.           (2) If  he fails  to furnish the return and select      his  land   within  the  prescribed  period,  then  the      Collector many in respect of him obtain the information      required to  be shown in the return through such agency      as he  may deem  fit and select the laud for him in the      manner prescribed in sub section (2) of section 5-B.           (3)  If   such  person   fails  to   furnish   the      declaration the provisions of section 5-C shall apply.           (4) The excess land of such person shall be at the      disposal of  the State  Government for  utilization  as      surplus are;  under clause  (a) of  section 10-A or for      such other  purposes    the  State  Government  may  by      notification direct."      Unclouded  by   case  law,  we  first  study  s.  1953. Forgetting s.  10-A for   moment, we find that if, after the commencement of the Act, April 15, 1953, any person acquires any land  by inheritance  or bequest or gift which, with the lands already  held by  him exceed in the in the permissible area, than  he shall  furnish  to  the  Collector  a  return indicating the  permissible area  he desires to retain. This he shall  do within  the prescribed period [S 19B(1)]. If he defaults to  make the  return, the Collector will select the land for  him [19B(2).  He will suffer a penalty for failure to furnish  the declaration [19B(3)]. The excess land, i.e., the surplus  area shall be at the disposal of Government for utilization under s. 10-A [19B(4)1. The surplus land will be used for  re-settlement of  tenants ejected or to be ejected under cl.  (i) sub-s.  (1) of s. 9 or other purpose notified by Government.  The profound  concern of the law to preserve the surplus  stock is  manifest from  the obligation cast by sub-ss. (1)  and (4)  of 19B  to declare  and deliver excess lands. How you came to hold the excess  is not the question. Why you  should be  permitted to  keep more than what others can lawfully own is the query. A might have 10-925 Sup  CI/75 634 acquired by paying hard cash might have received by gift and by bequest  and  D  by  settlement  and  by  partition.  The agrarian  policy  is  equitable  ownership  and  the  reform philosophy is  redistributive justice  the rural  goal being small peasant  proprietorship. What  difference does it make as to  how you  came by  a large holding from the standpoint above outlined?  The thrust  of s.  19-B is that even if the source of  the excess  area is inheritance, bequest of gift, the capacity to own is conditioned by the permissible limit.      Section 10-A  does not militate against this mandate of s. 19-B.  Indeed, s. 19-B had to be enacted because the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Court  took   the  view   that  area  which  became  surplus subsequent to  April 15, 1953 was not hit by the ceiling set and land  acquired by  an heir  by inheritance is saved from utilisation by  the State.  Section 10-(a)  is wide  in  its terms and  encompasses all surplus area, howsoever obtained. Even s. 10A(b) strikes not discordant note. All that it says and means  is that  lands acquired by an heir by inheritance are saved  in so  far as  dispositions  of  such  lands  are concerned. The  drafting of  the saving clause is cumbersome but the  sense is  and, having regard to the conspectus, can only be  that although in the hands of the propositus, it is surplus land,  if among  the heirs  it is  not,  then  their transfers will  not be  affected by  the interdict of s. 10- A(a) the  sins of  the father shall not set the teeth of the children on  edge. If the heirs are otherwise small holders, the fact  that their  father was  a  large  owner  will  not deprive the former of their heritage, if it is less than the permissible area.  We see  no conflict  between s.  10-A and 19B. Assuming  some inconsistency,  primacy goes  to s.  19B which effectuates the primary object. It is settled law that Courts should  favour an  interpretation that  promotes  the general purpose of an Act rather than one that does not.      Counsel for the respondents adopted the arguments which found favour with the High Court and pressed two points. The scheme of  the Act,  according to the learned Judges, was to see that  no one  held in excess of the permissible area and since by  the gift  to the  son or  wife the latter had only lands within permissible limits, there was no frustration of the policy  of the  law This  reasoning is  repugnant to the basic scheme  because the  surplus pool  will  be  adversely affected if  gifts and  other transfers  which will skim off surplus were  to be  allowed. Indeed,  the flaw  in the High Court’s argument  is that  if it  were allowed  to  prevail, there will  be no  surplus land  at all,  every large holder being free  to screen  his surplus  in the names of his with and kin  or servants  or reliable  friends, by going through alienatory exercises.  A legislation  which has provided for ignoring decrees diminishing surplus lands and has otherwise prevented the  escape of excess area by voluntary transfers, cannot conceivably be intended to permit inherited excesses.      The second argument which appealed to the High Court is a little  curious, and somewhat difficult to follow. Section 19-B directs  the owner who, by inheritance, comes to own an excess area,  to make  a declaration  of his  lands within a prescribed time.  This does  rot mean  that the  time lag is statutorily given for executing gifts and 635 transfers to  defeat the law itself. Such a conclusion would be obviously  absurd. What  is intended is to give some time to the,  heir to ascertain the assets he has inherited, make the choice of his ’reserved area’ which he likes to keep and make the necessary declaration. A processual facility cannot be converted  into an  opportunity to  pervert and to thwart the substantive object of the law. After all,  courts, faced with special case situations, have ’creatively’ to interpret legislation.  The   courts  are   ’finishers,  refiners  and polishers of  legislation which  comes to  them in  a  state requiring varying  degrees  of  further.  processing’,  said Donaldson J.,  in Corocraft  Ltd. v.  Pan  American  Airways Inc.(1) and  indeed it  is no  secret that courts constantly give their own shape to enactments.      We  feel   that  when   economic  legislation   in  the implementation of  Part lV  of the  Constitution strikes new ground and  takes liberties  with old  jurisprudence,  there looms an  interpretation problem  of some  dimensions  which

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

Indian jurists  will have  to tackle.  The genre of agrarian reform laws, with special constitutional status, as it were, warrants interpretative  skills which  will  stifle  evasive attempts, specially by way of gifts and bequests and suspect transfers. Here  ss. 10-A,  19-A and 19B, inter alia, strike at these tactics.      Our conclusion,  in conformity  with the  principles of statutory construction  we have projected, is that the gifts in both  the appeals  fail in the face of s. 19B. It follows that the  appeals have  to be  allowed, which  we hereby  do without hesitation,  without costs  how ever to either party at any stage. P.H.P.                                      Appeals allowed.      (1) [1968] 3 W.L.R. 714, 732. 636