1. Consolidation of agricultural holdings — Reservation of land for village Panchayat and non-proprietors without compensation — Challenge to validity of the East Punjab Holdings Act and related rules. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 196
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
(1) Ranjit Singh and others (In C.A. No. 743 of 1963) (2) Major (now Lt. Col.) Micheal A. R. Skinner and others (C.A. Nos. 553-554 of 1962), Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 743 of 1963 and 553-554 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
In C.A. Nos. 553 and 554 of 1962 : Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates with him), for Appellants;
In C.A. No. 743 of 1963 : Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. Kobrudhun, Advocate, with him), for Appellant;
In C.As. Nos. 553 and 334 of 1962 : and Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in C.A. No. 743 of 1963 : M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates), for Respondents.
In C.A. No. 743 of 1963 : M/ s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta Advocates, for Respondent No. 4.
* See C.W. No. 319 of 1961 and Civil Writ No. 545 of 1958 and L.P.A. No. 388 of 1958, D/- 13-12-1961 and 12-9-1961 - Punj respectively.
Advocates:
B.R.G.K.Achar, BISHAN NARAIN, D.Kobrudhun, K.L.Mehta, R.Ganapathy Iyer, S.K.MEHTA
B.R.G.K.Achar, BISHAN NARAIN, D.Kobrudhun, K.L.Mehta, R.Ganapathy Iyer, S.K.MEHTA
Agrarian reform under Article 31-A of the Constitution includes the comprehensive planning of rural areas, such as reserving land for community facilities and non-proprietors, and is not limited to the mere redistribution of land to the landless.
Headnote:(A) East Punjab Holdings (Conservation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Sections 18 and 46; East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (2nd Amendment and Validation) Act, 1960 - Section 2(bb) and 23-A; Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 19; Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 - Sections 3, 4, 6 and 7; Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953; Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(f), 31 and 31-A - Consolidation of agricultural holdings - Reservation of land for common purposes and non-proprietors - Lack of compensation - Protection under Article 31-A - Whether the planning of rural areas and redistribution of land for community benefit constitutes agrarian reform - Held, yes. (Paras 2, 8, 13, 14)
(B) Article 31-A - Scope of "agrarian reform" - The expression "agrarian reform" should be given a large and liberal meaning. Proper planning of rural areas, including the beneficial utilization of vacant and waste lands and the provision of land for community facilities like schools, hospitals, and house sites for agricultural artisans, is an essential part of agrarian reform. (Paras 10, 12, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
During consolidation proceedings of agricultural holdings, portions of land owned by proprietors were reserved for the village Panchayat for management and income, and other portions were reserved for non-proprietors for house sites or for common village purposes such as schools and hospitals. No compensation was paid to the proprietors for these lands. The validity of the legislative measures allowing such reservations was challenged as being in breach of the right to property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reservation of land for the Panchayat and non-proprietors was part of a general scheme of rural planning and agrarian reform. Such measures are intended to raise economic standards and improve rural health and social conditions, which are essential for the success of agrarian reforms.
Issues: Whether the transfer of common lands owned by proprietors to the village Panchayat and the conferral of proprietary rights on non-proprietors without compensation is ultra vires Article 31 of the Constitution or protected by Article 31-A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that "agrarian reform" encompasses not only the redistribution of land to the landless but also the proper planning of the rural economy. The assignment of lands for community benefits and the settling of agricultural artisans are integral to making villages self-sufficient. Therefore, the modification of rights under the relevant consolidation and land regulation acts is protected by Article 31-A. (Paras 12-14)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the acquisition of land for common purposes and allotment to non-proprietors without compensation violates Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 or is protected by Article 31-A. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
3. Agrarian reform encompasses rural planning, including the beneficial utilization of waste lands and the provision of community facilities through village Panchayats to improve rural economic standards. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Legislation facilitating rural planning and community welfare as part of a general scheme of agrarian reform is protected under Article 31-A of the Constitution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 15 )
6. Does the term agrarian reform under Article 31-A only cover the redistribution of land between landlords and tenants?
No. The court held that agrarian reform has a wide meaning, encompassing the general scheme of planning rural areas, the productive utilization of vacant and waste lands, and the improvement of rural health and social conditions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. Is the reservation of land for village Panchayats or community facilities protected under Article 31-A?
Yes. Such provisions are considered essential parts of the redistribution of holdings and rural planning, aimed at raising economic standards and bettering rural conditions, thus falling within the protection of Article 31-A. (Para 13 )
8. Does the allotment of residential sites (abadi deh) to agricultural artisans constitute a protected agrarian reform?
Yes. Settling agricultural artisans is part of rural planning and the larger goal of making villages self-sufficient, which is comprehended within a scheme of agrarian reforms protected by Article 31-A. (Para 14 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J.:
This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 and Civil Appeals Nos. 553 and 554 of 1962. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 are owners of lands in village Virk Kalan, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. The appellants in the other appeals are owners of lands in villages Sewana and Mehnd of Tehsil Hansi in District Hissar. Proceedings for the consolidation of holdings are going on in these villages under the East Punjab Holdings (Conservation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (Act 30 of 1948). This Act was amended on many occasions but we are concerned with it as amended by the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (2nd Amendment and Validation) Act 1960 (27 of 1960). In the present consolidation proceedings portions of lands from those commonly owned by the appellants as proprietors, have been reserved for the village Panchayat and given over to it for diverse purposes, and other portions have been reserved either for non-proprietors or for the common purposes of the villages. Without going into too much detail it is sufficient to indicate that in village Virk Kalan 270 kanals and 13 marlas have been given to the village Panchayat for management and realisation of income, although the ownership is still shown in village papers as Shamlat Deh in the names of the proprietors and 10 kanals and 3 marlas have been reserved for abadi to be distributed among persons entitled thereto and 3 kanals and 7 marlas have-been reserved for manure pits. Similarly, in village Sewana 400 kanals and 4 marlas have been set apart for the village Panchayat for extension of the abadi and to enable grants of 8 marlas of land to be made to each family of non-proprietors and 16 kanals have been reserved for a primary school and some more for a phirni. Similarly, in village Mehnda, land has been reserved for the village Panchayat, a school, tanning ground, hospital, cremation ground and for non-proprietors. The proprietors were not paid compensation for the lands and it is the taking away and allotment of these lands which are the subject of challenge in these appeals on grounds about to be stated. Before, however, we do so we will set down some of the legislative measures which have relevance and mention some of the cases decided under them one of which led to the second amendment Act.
2. The Consolidation Act 50 of 1948 was passed to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings. S. 18 of the Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force,it shall be lawful for any Consolidation Officer to direct:inter alia
"(a) that any land specifically- assigned for any common purpose shall cease to be so assigned and to assign any other land in its place;
(b) xx xx xx xx xx xx
(c) that if in any area under consolidation no land is reserved for any common purpose including extension of the village abadi, or if the land so reserved is inadequate, to assign other land for such purpose."
Section 46 of the Consolidation Act conferred powers on the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act and in particular to provide for
"(e) the manner in which the area is to be reserved under Section 18 and the manner in which it is to be dealt with and also the manner in which the village abadi is to be given to proprietors and non-proprietors (including scheduled castes, Sikh backward classes, artisans and labourers) on payment of compensation or otherwise :"
On March 3., 1956 the Punjab Government, by a notification, added R.16 to the Rules for reservation of the Abadi for the proprietors as well as the non-proprietors and it read as follows :
"The area to be reserved for the common purpose of extension of abadi for proprietors and non-proprietores u/S.18(c) of the Act shall be reserved after scrutinizing the demand of proprietors desirous of buil
