Acquisition of land by the State for providing income to the Gram Panchayat is permissible as the impugned Act has for its objects agrarian reform.

Khosla, J.

1. In this case we are called upon to consider the vires of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (L of 1948) as amended by Punjab Act No. XXVII of 1960. The Act was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Kishan Singh V/s. State, 1960-62 Pun L. R. 840: (AIR 1961 Punj 1)(FB). Then the present matter camp up before Dua, J., sitting singly, counsel for the petitioners cited before him the Supreme Court decision in K. K. Kochuni V/s. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080 and argued that the Full Bench decision of this Court could no longer be considered good law in view of what the Supreme Court had said. Dua, J., accordingly referred the matter to a larger Bench. It then came up before my Lord Grover and myself sitting in Division Bench and as the correctness of the Full Bench decision in Kishan Singhs case 62 Pun LR 840: (AIR 1961 Punj 1)(FB) was being questioned we considered it advisable to suggest that a Bench larger than the Full Bench, which had given the previous decision, should consider the matter afresh. In this manner the case has now been argued before a Bench of five Judges.

2. The facts of the case are given in the Division Bench order dated the 7th of August, 1961 and may be briefly recapitualted. In the course of consolidation proceedings in village Bhagiari, district Hoshiarpur, 20 acres of land owned by private individuals were set aside to provide income for the Gram Panchayat. This act of the Consolidation authorities was challenged on the ground that the law which authorised the transfer of proprietary rights to Gram Panchayat for the purpose of providing income to them was ultra vires Article 31 of the Constitution. The sole question for our decision, therefore, is whether it is permissible to set aside land owned by private individuals for providing income to the Gram Panchayat. The argument raised on behalf of the State is that the law is saved by the provisions of Article 31-A(1)(a) inasmuch as the act of setting aside this land is nothing more than acquisition by the State of an estate and such acquisition is not hit by the provisions of Article 81 and the law under which this can be done need not make a provision for the calculation or the award of compensation in respect of the land acquired.

3. On behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand it is argued that acquisition by the State of an estate is only justified if the aim and object of the acquisition is agrarian reform. It was further argued that the setting aside of these 20 acres does not amount to acquisition, but amounts to the modification of rights in this property because the land has been transferred from owners to the Gram Panchayat and any modification of proprietary rights must have for its aim agrarian reform or the removal of intermediaries. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon a number of decisions and pointed out that no other conclusion was possible from a study of the matter in which Article 31A(1)(a) came to be enacted. He drew our attention to the statement of objects and reasons prepared when the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, was introduced in Parliament. Reference was made to these objects and reasons by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kochunis case AIR 1960 SC 1080 while considering the vires of Madras Act No. 32 of 1955. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, however, referred to the statement of objects and reasons for a very limited purpose and indeed it would be extremely dangerous to interpret a statute of which the words are quite clear by referring to the statement of objects and reasons prepared by the introducer of the Bill. In the present case we find that there is nothing whatever in the wording of Article 31A(1)(a) to warrant the suggestion that acquisition must be only for the purpose of promoting agrarian reform. The word agrarian reform nowhere occurs in the Article. When a promoter of a