The ceiling provisions of S. 32-A (1) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Act 13 of 1955) apply to all persons who own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit, regardless of whether they were in cultivatory possession on the appointed date.

Headnote:
LAND CEILING - PEPUS TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1955 - S. 32-A (1) - CEILING ON HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND - APPLICABILITY - PERSON NOT IN CULTIVATORY POSSESSION ON APPOINTED DATE - SUBSEQUENT RESTORATION TO POSSESSION - WHETHER ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FOR PLANTING ORCHARD UNDER S. 32-K (1) (VI).
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, owner of agricultural land, was ousted from possession in 1954. During the pendency of a civil suit for possession, the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Act 13 of 1955) was enacted, imposing a ceiling on the holding of agricultural land. The appellant was restored to possession in 1960. She submitted a return under the Act, and the Collector declared that she held excess land. The appellant challenged the order, contending that the ceiling provisions did not apply to her as she was not in cultivatory possession on the appointed date and that she was entitled to an exemption for planting an orchard under S. 32-K (1) (vi) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the ceiling provisions of S. 32-A (1) of the Act applied to the appellant even though she was not in cultivatory possession on the appointed date. The Court held that the ban imposed by S. 32-A (1) operates whenever a person is found to own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit. The Court further held that the appellant was not entitled to an exemption for planting an orchard under S. 32-K (1) (vi) of the Act as she had not given an undertaking to the Collector within the prescribed time and had not planted the orchard within the prescribed period.
Issues: 1. Whether the ceiling provisions of S. 32-A (1) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Act 13 of 1955) apply to a person who was not in cultivatory possession of the land on the appointed date but was subsequently restored to possession? 2. Whether a person who was not in cultivatory possession of the land on the appointed date is entitled to an exemption for planting an orchard under S. 32-K (1) (vi) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the ceiling provisions of S. 32-A (1) of the Act apply to all persons who own or hold land in personal cultivation exceeding the permissible limit, regardless of whether they were in cultivatory possession on the appointed date. 2. The Court held that a person who was not in cultivatory possession of the land on the appointed date is not entitled to an exemption for planting an orchard under S. 32-K (1) (vi) of the Act unless they have given an undertaking to the Collector within the prescribed time and have planted the orchard within the prescribed period.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

SHAH, J. : The appellant Vidya Vati who is the owner of 56.101/4 "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 title to the land. A civil suit filed by her for a declaration of title and for possession of the land from the trespassers was decreed and she was restored to possession of the land on October 15, 1960.

2. 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 pared 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 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 a 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 21.143/4 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 and 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.

3. 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 possession" of the land on the appointed date i.e. October 30, 1956, that the appellant has not acquired the land by transfer, exchange, base, agreement or settlement, or by inheritance, bequest or gift from a person to whom she is an heir, and on that account Ss. 32-L and 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.

4. 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 persona 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 personal cultivation within the State which exceeds in the aggregate the permissible able 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 or settlement, or acquir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis