http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: VIDYA VATI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/1967

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M. SHELAT, J.M.

CITATION:  1968 AIR  519            1968 SCR  (1) 746  CITATOR INFO :  R          1985 SC1380  (6,7,9)

ACT: The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955, ss. 32-A(1)  and 32-K-Whether ban on holding land in  excess  of permissible  limits  operates  only on  excess  on  date  of commencement of Act 15 of 1956 or also in future-Person  not in possession of land on date of commencement unable to give undertaking  to plant an orchard within two  years-Therefore unable  to  claim  exemption for 10 acres  for  an  orchard- Whether has a remedy.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  was  the  owner  of  56  standard  acres  of agricultural  land  in Punjab from which she was  ousted  in 1954 by certain persons who had no title to the land and was restored to possession in 1960 after a suit filed by her was decreed  in her favour.  The Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955 was brought into force in March,  1955. Under s. 5 of that Act any land owner owning land  exceeding 30  standard  acres  was entitled  to  select  for  personal cultivation  a maximum area of land within  the  permissible limit  and to inform the collector of his selection.   Since the   appellant’s  land  was  in  the  occupation   of   the trespassers  at  the time, she did not  make  any  selection under s. 5. The Act was amended with effect from October 30, 1956  by  the Fast Punjab Act 15 of  1956  which  introduced Chapter IV-A and the new s. 32-A(1) provided that no  person shall   be  entitled  to  hold  land  under   his   personal cultivation which exceeds in the, aggregate the  permissible limit. The  appellant submitted a return in the prescribed form  in respect of her land and the collector, after considering her objections,  declared  that she held 21  standard  acres  in excess of the ceiling prescribed by the Act.  This order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner and a writ  petition to quash the order was rejected by the High Court. In  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf  of  the appellant (i) that s. 32-A(1) operates only at the point  of time  when the Act comes into force i.e. October  30.  1956; the ceiling could be enforced only if a person owned or held

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

land in excess of the permissible limit on that day or if he acquired or possessed it after the commencement of Act 15 of 1956 by transfer, exchange, inheritance or any of the  other ways  expressly covered by ss. 32-L and 32-M; and  (ii)  the appellant should in any event have been permitted to reserve 10 acres out of her holding under s. 32-K for an orchard. HELD:     Dismissing the appeal. (i)  The ban imposed by section 32-A(1) operates whenever  a person is found to own or hold land in personal  cultivation exceeding, the permissible limit. [650G] Although  ss.  32-L  and 32-M deal  expressly  with  certain classes  of acquisitions after the date of  commencement  of the Act. on that account no restriction can be imposed  upon the  connotation  of  the expression  "no  person  shall  be entitled  to own or held" occurring in S. 32-A. that  it  is limited in its operation to the point of commencement of the Act. [649B-D] 647 Such an interpretation is also contrary to the scheme of the Act.   Under the scheme of Chapters II, III and IV  as  they originally  stood  the  tenants  were  given  the  right  to purchase  the  lands  not  selected  by  the  landowner  for personal  cultivation,  but  the  landowner  was   otherwise subject to no further restrictions; by Ch.  IV-A it was  in- tended to place a ceiling upon the owning or holding of land for  personal  cultivation  by a landowner or  a  tenant  in excess  of  the permissible limit and to  provide  that  the excess land be appropriated to the State. [650B, C] (ii) In order to qualify for the exemption for land upto  10 acres  under s. 32-K for planting an orchard, the  landowner has  to  give  an undertaking that he will  bring  the  land within  two years from the commencement of the Amending  Act under  an  orchard,  has to plant the  orchard  within  that period,  and  to maintain it as such till the  date  of  the grant of exemption.  A person like the appellant who is  not in possession of the land at the date when the Amending  Act is  brought into force may not be in a position to give  and fulfill  the undertaking.  The legislature has not made  any provision for extending the time in respect of special cases like  the present or for extending the time for planting  an orchard;  it is for the legislature to rectify  this  lacuna and  not  for the Court to give a strained  meaning  to  the words used by the legislature which they do not bear. [651C- F]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1965. Appeal  by  special leave from the order dated  January  14, 1964  of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent No.  11  of 1964. S.   Y.  Gupte,  Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal,  for  the appellant. Hardev  Singh, S. P. Nayar for R. N. Sachthey, for the  res- pondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant Vidya Vati who is the owner of 56.10- 1/4  standard  acres  of agricultural land  in  the  village Bishanpura, tahsil  Jind, District Sangrur, in the State  of Punjab, was ousted from  the   land  sometime  in  1954   by certain persons who had no tide    to  the  land.   A  civil suit  filed  by  her  for it  declaration  of  titleand  for possession of the land from the trespassers was decreed  and she  was restored to possession of the land on  October  15,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

1960. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955  was brought  into  force during the pendency of the  civil  suit with effect from March 4, 1955.  Under s. 5 of the Pepsu Act 13  of  1955 every landowner owning  land  exceeding  thirty standard   acres  was  entitled  to  select   for   personal cultivation  from  the land held by him in the  State  as  a landowner  any  parcel or parcels of land not  exceeding  in aggregate  area the permissible limit and reserve such  land for personal cultivation by intimating his selection in  the prescribed form and manner to the Collector.  Since the land was in the occupation of the trespassers, the appellant 648 did not make any selection of land for personal cultivation. The,  Act was amended with effect from October 30,  1956  by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second  Amendment) Act  15 of 1956 and thereby, amongst other  provisions,  Ch. IV-A  was added.  The provisions contained in  that  Chapter were  designed to impose a ceiling on the holding of  owners and   tenants  of  agricultural  land  held   for   personal cultivation  within the State and for imposing  restrictions on  acquisition of land and disposal of surplus’  area.   In respect  of the land owned by her the appellant submitted  a return in Form VII-A prescribed under the Rules framed under the  Act.  The Collector of the District  after  considering the  objections  of the appellant, declared  that  she  held 21.14-3/4 standard acres in excess of the ceiling prescribed by  the Act.  The order of the Collector was  confirmed  in appeal  to the Commissioner, Patiala Division.   A  petition moved  by  the  appellant  under Arts.  226  &  227  of  the Constitution for the issue of a writ quashing that order was rejected  by  Gurdev Singh, J., and an  appeal  against  the order  was  summarily dismissed by a Division Bench  of  the High  Court.   The  appellant appeals  to  this  Court  with special leave. Counsel  for the appellant contends that the  provisions  of Ch.  IV-A have no application to the case of the  appellant, since she was not in "cultivatory possessions of the land on the appointed date i.e. October 30, 1956; that the appellant has  not  acquired the land by  transfer,  exchange,  lease, agreement or settlement, or by inheritance, bequest or  gift front  a person to whom she is an heir, and on that  account ss.  32-L & 32-M of the Act have no application to her  case and  that  in  any  event the  appellant  should  have  been permitted  to reserve out of her holding ten acres  of  land for an orchard under s. 32-K of the Act. Before  considering  the merit of these  contentions  it  is necessary to notice the relevant provisions in Ch.  IV-A  of the  Act which imposed a ceiling on holding of  agricultural land under personal cultivation.  Section 32-A(1) of the Act provides: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law custom, usage  or agreement, no person shall be entitled to  own  or hold  as  landowner or  tenant  land  under  his  presonal cultivation within the State which exceeds in the  aggregate the permissible limit." Counsel for the appellant contends that s. 32-A(1)  operates only at the point of time when the Act comes into force i.e. October 30, 1956, and not thereafter.  If on that date, says counsel, a person owns or holds within the State land  under his  personal cultivation as landowner or tenant in  excess’ of the permissible limit, the State is entitled to take away the surplus land, and that if the holder or tenant after the commencement of Act 15 of 1956 acquires or possesses land by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

649 or  settlement,  or acquires it by inheritance,  bequest  or gift  from  a person to whom he is an heir,  and  his  total holding exceeds the permissible limit, by express provisions contained  in ss. 32-L and 32-M the ceiling on holding  will be enforced, but where an owner of land for whatever reasons brings  under cultivation land of his ownership.  after  the commencement  of the Act, the provision imposing  a  ceiling does  not  operate.   The entire argument is  raised  on  an assumption that s. 32A(1) operates only at the date on which the  Act was brought into operation; that argument,  in  our judgment, is contrary to the plain terms of s. 32-A(1).   It is  true that ss. 32-L and 32-M expressly deal with  certain classes  of acquisitions after the date of the  commencement of  the  Act,  but on that account  no  restriction  may  be imposed  upon the connotation of the expression  "no  person shall be entitled to own or hold" occurring in s. 32-A, that it is limited in its operation to the point of  commencement and has no operation in the future.  It may be noticed  that s.  32-L renders all subsequent acquisitions as a result  of which  the  holding of a person of land under  his  personal cultivation exceeds thirty acres "null and void", and s. 32- M  which deals substantially with  involuntary  acquisitions (such  as acquisitions by inheritance or bequest)  sets  out the  machinery  for making declarations and  the  manner  in which  the  land in personal cultivation in  excess  of  the ceiling  will  be dealt with.  By  an  appropriate  drafting device,  it  may  have  been  possible  to  dovetail   these provisions  into the other sections, but if in the  interest of clarity certain specific cases are separately dealt with, an  intention  to  restrict the  operation  of  the  general provision contained in s. 32-A(1) cannot be implied. The scheme of Act 13 of 1955 as originally enacted was  that by  s.  5  every  landowner  owning  land  exceeding  thirty standard   acres  was  required  to  select   for   personal cultivation  from  the land held by him as a  landowner  any parcel  or parcels of land not exceeding in  aggregate  area the  permissible  limit and reserve such land  for  personal cultivation.  The selection could be made in respect of land under  personal occupation as well as in respect of land  in the occupation of tenants.  After making the selection,  the landowner could take appropriate steps to evict the  tenants from  that land.  But in the land in the possession  of  the tenants  and not included in the land selected and  reserved under s. 5 for personal cultivation, the tenant of the  land could  acquire proprietary rights in the manner and  subject to  the  conditions provided under s. 22.   This  right  was exercisable  by the tenant in respect of land which was  not selected  for  personal  cultivation by  the  owner  and  in respect  of  which  he was not liable to  be  evicted.   The scheme  of the Act, therefore, was that the  landowner  was entitled  to select for personal cultivation from  the  land held  by him within the State any parcel or parcels of  land not  exceeding in the aggregate the permissible  limit.   If the land so 650 selected was in the possession of a tenant he could. subject to the. restrictions contained in s. 7-A, evict the  tenant. The  lands which were not selected for personal  cultivation by  the  landowner could be purchased by the tenant  in  the manner  and subject to the conditions provided in  s.  22. The  Legislature thereafter modified the scheme of  the  Act and, incorporated Ch.  IV-A under which no person could  own or hold land either as landowner or, as tenant in excess  of the  permissible  limit.  The excess was to  be  treated  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

surplus  land and appropriated to the State.  Whereas  under the  scheme  of Chapters 11, III and IV as  they  originally stood the tenants were given the right to purchase the lands not selected by the landowner for personal cultivation,  but the   landowner   was  otherwise  subject  to   no   further restrictions; by Ch., V-A it was intended to place a ceiling upon the owning or holding of land for personal  cultivation by  a  landowner or a tenant in excess  of  the  permissible limit. Viewed  in the light of that scheme, also, it is  impossible to construe s. 32-A as being operative only at the point  of time  at which the Amending Act incorporating Ch.  IV-A  was brought into force, for the words of the section contain  no limitation,  and  the scheme of the Act  indicates  no  such implication.  It is true that under s. 32-B every person who owns or holds as landowner or tenant land under his personal cultivation   exceeding   the  permissible  limit   at   the commencement  of  the Act is required to make  a  return  in respect of his holding.  But that is enacted with a view  to provide  machinery for effectuating the provisions  imposing the  ceiling  on land held at the date of  commencement:  it does not even indirectly suggest that s. 32-A is limited  in its  operation  to  the point of time at which  the  Act  is brought into force and is spent thereafter.  Failure on  the part  of the Legislature to deal with cases in which it  the date  on which the Act was brought into force, the owner  or holder  of land was not cultivating the land because he  was not  in cultivatory possession thereof but was  restored  to his  possession  during the subsistence of the  Act,  cannot also  be used to limit the operation of s. 32-A(1)  only  to the  point of time at which the Act was brought into  force. In our judgment the ban imposed by s. 32-A operates whenever he  is  found to own or told land  in  personal  cultivation exceeding the permissible limit. Section 32-K provides for exemption of lands used or intend- ed  to be used for certain specified purposes to the  extent indicated  from the ceiling imposed by s. 32-A(1).   By  cl. (vi) of s. 32-K(1) it is provided that the provisions of  s. 32-A shall not apply where a landowner gives an  undertaking in writing to the, Collector that he shall, within a  period of two years from the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands (Second- Amendment) Act, 1956, plant  an orchard  in any area of his land not exceeding ten  standard acres, such area of land.                             651 Sub-section  (2) of s. 32-K provides that where a  landowner has, by an undertaking given to the Collector, retained  any area of land with him for planting an orchard, and fails  to plant  the orchard within a period of two years referred  to in cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1), the land so retained by him shall on  the expiry of that period vest in the  State  Government under s. 32-E.  It is also provided by sub-s. (3) which  was added  by  Punjab Act 27 of 1962 with  retrospective  effect from   October  30,  1956,  that  notwithstanding   anything contained in the Act, the exemption specified in cl. (vi) of sub-s.  (1)  shall not be allowed unless  the  land  planted within  the  period  specified therein is  found  to  be  an orchard  also  at the time of granting  the  exemption.   In order  to  qualify  for exemption from the  ceiling  to  the extent of ten acres for the purpose of planting an  orchard, the landowner has to give an undertaking that he will  bring the  land  within  two years from the  commencement  of  the Amending Act under an orchard, and has to plant the  orchard within that period and to maintain it as an orchard till the date  of  the grant of exemption.  A person who  is  not  in

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

possession of the land at the date when the Amending Act  is brought  into force may not ordinarily be in a  position  to give  an undertaking under cl. (vi) of s. 32-K(1)  to  bring the  land under an orchard, since such a person may  not  be able to say whether he will be able to obtain possession  of the   land  so  as  to  carry  out  the  undertaking.    The Legislature   has  failed  to  make  a  provision   enabling reservation  to  be  made by persons belonging  to  the  ex- ceptional class to which the appellant belongs.  But on that account the Court is not competent to refuse to give  effect to the plain words of the Act.  A lacuna undoubtedly  exists in the Act, but it is for the Legislature to rectify it  and not  for the Courts to give a strained meaning to the  words used  by  the  Legislature  which they  do  not  bear.   The expression   "within  a  period  of  two  years   from   the commencement  of  the Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural  Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956" cannot be read as "within  two years  from  the  date  on which the  holder  or  tenant  is restored  to possession".  The Legislature has not made  any provision  for  extending  the time in  respect  of  certain special cases like the one before us, or extending the  time for  planting  an orchard.  The High Court  was,  therefore, right  in  holding  that the appellant could  not  claim  an additional  area  of  ten  acres of  land  for  planting  an orchard. The  appeal therefore fails.  There will be no order  as  to costs. R.K.P.S.              Appeal dismissed, 652