SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th December 1958
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
1. Atma Ram (In Petn. No. 176 of 56);2. Amin Chand (In Petn. No. 177 of 56); 3. Jisukh Ram (In Petn. No. 253 of 56); 4. S. B. S. Amarsurjit Singh (In Petn. No. 34 of 57); 5. Ganga Ram (In Petn. No. 35 of 57); 6. Ganga Singh and Ors. (In Petn. No. 51 of 57); 7. Jagadish and Anr. (In Petn. No. 52 of 57); 8. Mota and Ors. (In Petn. No. 53 of 57); 9. Basti and Ors. (In Petn. No. 69 of 57); 10. Brij Lal and Ors. (In Petn. No. 70 of 57); 11. Ganpat (In Petn. No. 75 of 57). 12. Th. Harnath Singh (In Petn. No. 94 of 57);13. Mani Ram, (In Petn. No. 137 of 57); 14. Shri Hanuman Prasad (In Petn. No. 34 of 58); 15. Santa Singh and Ors. (In Petn. No. 58 of 58); 16. Raja Ram (In Petn. No. 72 of 58); 17. Lala Balraj (In Petn. No. 90 of 58); 18. Surain Singh and Ors. (In Petn. No. 92 of 58); 19. Mani Ram and Ors. (In Petn. No. 106 of 58); 20. Hardeva (In Petn. No. 109 of 58) and 21. Inder Singh and Ors. (In Petn. No. 115 of 58), Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
Petitions Nos. 176, 177, 253 of 1956; 34, 35, 51-53, 69, 70, 75, 94 and 137 of 1957; 34, 58, 72, 90, 92, 106, 109 and 115 of 1958.
Lal Singh and another, Interveners.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. C. B. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Petitioner (In Petn. No. 176/56); Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Petitioner (In Petn. No. 177/56); Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 253/56, 34, 35, 51-53, 69, 70, 75, 94 & 137/57, 34, 58, 72, 92, 106, 109 & 115/58); M/s. Radhey Lal Aggarwal and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, for Petitioner (In Petn. No. 90/58). Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India and Mr. S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, (M/s. Gopal Singh & T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him ), for Respondent No. 1 (In Petn. No. 176/56); Mr. S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, (Mr. T. M. Sen, Advocate with him), for Respondent No. 1 (In Petns. Nos. 177 & 253/56; 34, 35, 51-53, 69, 70, 75, 94 & 137/57; 34, 58, 72, 90, 92, 106, 109 & 115/58); Mr. R. S. Gheba, Advocate, for Respondent No. 3 (In Petn. No. 90/58); M. Dipak Dutt Chowdhury, Advocate, for Respondent No. 3 (In Petn. No. 176/56); Mr. Udai Bhan Chowdhury, Advocate, for Respondent No. 7 (In Petn. No. 59/57) and Respondent No. 3 (In Petn. No. 70/57); Mr. Harnam Singh, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Sadhu Singh, Advocate, with him), for Interveners (In Petn. No. 176/56).
Judgment
B. P. SINHA, J. : These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution impugn the constitutionality of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (Punj X of 1953) (which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act), as amended by Act XI of 1955. The petitioners are land-owners of the lands affected by the provisions of the impugned Act. The State of Punjab and its officers, besides persons claiming benefits under the Act, are the respondents in these several petitions.
2. The impugned Act has a history which may shortly be set out. With a view to providing for the security of tenure to tenants, the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Ordinance IV of 1950, was promulgated with effect from 13th May 1950. That Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act XII of 1950, which came into force on 6th November 1950, on the date on which it was first published in the Punjab Government gazette. The Act prescribed a limit of one hundred standard acres of land (equivalent to two hundred ordinary acres) which could be held by a land-owner for his "self-cultivation"; and it was termed "permissible limit" - (S. 2 (3)). Any land-ower having land in excess of the "permissible limit," was authorized by S. 3 to select for "self-cultivation," land out of the entire area held by him in the State of Punjab, as land-owner, and reserve it for his own use to the extent of the "permissible limit." This "right of reservation" had to be exercised, first, in respect of land in his self cultivation; and if the extent of such land fell short of the "permissible limit, he could, under S. 4, make up the deficiency by ejecting tenants under him in respect of such lands as fell within his reserved area. Section 5 fixed the minimum period of tenancy as four years, subject to certain exceptions set out in S. 6. These were some of the salient features of the Act of 1950, which itself was amended by the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act (Punj. V of 1951), which came into force on 24-12-1951. By the amending Act, the "permissible limit" was reduced to 50 standard acres equivalent to 100 ordinary acres, and the minimum period of tenancy was raised to five years. It also made provisions for preferential right of pre-emption-(S.12A), and conferred a right of purchase on the tenant in respect of land in his possession - (S. 12B), subject to certain exceptions-(S. 12C). Another legislation in this series was the Prevention of Ejectment (Temporary Powers) Ordinance No. 1 of 1952, which came into force on 11-6-1952. Then, came the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (Punj. X of 1953), now impugned, which repealed the aforesaid Acts XII of 1950 and V of 1951. It came into force on 15-4-1953. This Act itself was amended by Act LVII of 1953 and Act XI of 1955. Though this Act has undergone subsequent amendments in 1957 and 1958,. we are not concerned with those amendments, because they came into existence after this Court was moved under Art. 32 of the Constitution. We are concerned with the state of the law as it stood after the amendment of 1955, aforesaid.
3. Before dealing with the grounds of attack urged against the impugned Act, it is convenient to set out, in a nut-shell, the salient provisions of the Act, which have given rise to the present controversy, and which give an idea of the scope and nature of the legislation now under examination. The Act has a short Preamble, namely, "to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters." The Act further reduces the "permissible area" (S. 2 (3) ) in relation to a landlord or a tenant, to 30 standard acres equivalent to 60 ordinary acres, thus, releasing a larger area for resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under the provisions of the Act. So to say, it creates a pool of "surplus area" (S. 2 (5-a)), meaning thereby the area other than the "reserved area" in excess of the "permissible area," as aforesaid. "Reserved area" means the area lawfully reserved by the l
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.