1. Challenge to the constitutionality of legislation limiting land-holding for self-cultivation, creating surplus areas for tenant resettlement, and granting tenants rights to purchase land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 165
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).
Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, ACHHRU RAM, C.B.AGARWAL, Gopal Singh, H.N.SANYAL, Harnam Singh, M.DIPAK DUTT CHAUDHARY, NAUNIT LAL, R.S.GHEBA, RADHEY LAL AGRAWAL, S.M.Sikri, SADHU SINGH, T.M.SEN, UDAIBHAN CHAUDHARY
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, ACHHRU RAM, C.B.AGARWAL, Gopal Singh, H.N.SANYAL, Harnam Singh, M.DIPAK DUTT CHAUDHARY, NAUNIT LAL, R.S.GHEBA, RADHEY LAL AGRAWAL, S.M.Sikri, SADHU SINGH, T.M.SEN, UDAIBHAN CHAUDHARY
The Court held that "estate" under Article 31A of the Constitution includes portions or holdings of an estate, and laws modifying rights in such estates for agrarian reform are immune from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 246(3), Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry 18 - Legislative competence - The power to make laws with respect to "rights in or over land" and "land tenures" is comprehensive enough to encompass land reform measures, including limiting the extent of land held by a landowner for self-cultivation to release larger areas for cultivation by tenants. (Paras 5-8)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 31A - Interpretation of "estate" and "rights therein" - The expression "estate" includes not only entire estates but also shares or portions thereof (holdings), following the legal maxim "Omne majus continet in se minus" (the greater contains the less). Validating enactments intended to save agrarian reform legislation from constitutional challenges should be construed in their widest amplitude. (Paras 10-12)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 31A - "Extinguishment or modification of rights" - Legislation that limits the area for self-cultivation, utilizes surplus area for tenant resettlement, and mandates the sale of land to specified persons at a statutory price constitutes a modification of the landowner's substantive rights to hold and dispose of property. Such laws are immune from attack on grounds of violation of Articles 14, 19, and 31. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Landowners challenged the constitutionality of an Act that reduced the permissible limit of land for self-cultivation, created a pool of "surplus area" for the resettlement of ejected tenants, and conferred upon tenants the right to purchase land from the landowner at a price determined by the statute. The petitioners argued that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact the law and that it violated their fundamental rights.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the State Legislature was competent to enact the law under Entry 18 of List II. It further held that the Act provided for the modification of rights in "estates" within the meaning of Article 31A, as the term "estate" encompasses portions or holdings of an estate. Consequently, the Act is immune from challenges based on Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Issues: Whether the State Legislature had the legislative competence to limit land holdings; whether the impugned Act violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31; and whether the Act fell within the protective ambit of Article 31A.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that Entry 18 of List II provides broad authority for land tenure reforms. Under Article 31A, the term "estate" must be interpreted broadly to include portions of an estate to achieve the objective of agrarian reform. Because the Act modified the landowner's rights regarding the settlement of land, the cultivation of surplus area, and the transfer of property, it was saved by Article 31A, rendering any challenge based on Articles 14, 19, and 31 unsustainable.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Lack of legislative competence under Entry 18, List II, and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Constitution. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Entry 18 List II provides broad competence for land tenure reforms; Article 31A protects laws modifying rights in estates, including portions thereof. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. The expression estate in Article 31A includes portions or shares of an estate, rendering agrarian reform laws modifying such rights immune from Articles 14, 19, and 31. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
5. Petitions dismissed with costs. (Para 14 )
6. Does Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule authorize legislation limiting the area of land a proprietor can hold?
Yes. The expressions rights in or over land and land tenures are comprehensive enough to include land tenure reforms and measures limiting the extent of land in a land-owner's possession to release areas for tenants. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
7. Does the term estate in Article 31A of the Constitution include portions or shares of an estate, such as holdings?
Yes. Applying the legal maxim that the greater contains the less, the court held that rights in an estate include rights in any portion thereof, ensuring agrarian reform laws are not narrowly construed. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. What constitutes modification of rights in an estate for the purpose of immunity under Article 31A?
Modification includes restricting the right to settle land on chosen terms, limiting the right to cultivate surplus areas, and obliging the sale of land at a statutory price to specified persons. (Para 14 )
9. What is the effect of a law falling within the purview of Article 31A on challenges based on Articles 14, 19, and 31?
If a law provides for the extinguishment or modification of rights in an estate under Article 31A, it is immune from attack on grounds based on the provisions of Articles 14, 19, and 31. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 )
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
