Back
1964 Supreme(P&H) 79
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
D. FALSHAW,A. N. GROVER,P. D. SHARMA, JJ.
Jit Singh s/o Narain Singh
Versus
State of Punjab
Letters Patent Appeal No. 131 of 1960 against judgment of Gosain, J., in C.W. No. 792 of 1959
Decided On : 05-05-1964
H.S. Gujral, for Appellant; C.D. Dewan, Deputy Advocate-General, for Respondent.
The object of the impugned legislation was agrarian reform, as it was meant to improve the standard of living and working in the villages and to promote the common good of the village agricultural community.
Headnote:
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - RESERVATION OF LAND - COMMON PURPOSE - AGRARIAN REFORM - VALIDITY OF AMENDMENTS - EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS (CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION) ACT, 1948 (PUNJAB ACT 50 OF 1948), SECTIONS 2(BB), 18(C), 23-A - PUNJAB ACT 27 OF 1960 - PUNJAB ACT 39 OF 1963 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 31-A(1)(A).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Jit Singh, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the consolidation and repartition proceedings relating to his village, Ghariala, on the ground that it was proposed to allot 400 kanals or 50 acres of land to provide income for the Panchayat. The learned Single Judge, without discussing any of the other grounds on which the scheme was challenged, accepted the petition to the extent of setting aside the scheme so far as it related to the provision of land for furnishing income to the Panchayat on the strength of the decision of the Full Bench in Munsha Singh v. State of Punjab, 1960-62 Pun LR 1 : (AIR 1960 Punj 317).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned amendments to the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, which added various purposes for which land could be reserved for common purposes, were valid and protected by Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that the object of the impugned legislation was agrarian reform, as it was meant to improve the standard of living and working in the villages and to promote the common good of the village agricultural community.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendments to the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, which added various purposes for which land could be reserved for common purposes, were valid and protected by Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the object of the impugned legislation was agrarian reform?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned amendments were valid and protected by Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution because the object of the impugned legislation was agrarian reform. The Court held that agrarian reform was not to be given a narrow or pedantic meaning, but rather a wide and liberal connotation. The Court held that the impugned legislation was meant to improve the standard of living and working in the villages and to promote the common good of the village agricultural community. The Court held that this was a legitimate object of agrarian reform and that the impugned legislation was therefore protected by Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the object of the impugned legislation was agrarian reform because it was meant to improve the standard of living and working in the villages and to promote the common good of the village agricultural community. The Court held that this was a legitimate object of agrarian reform and that the impugned legislation was therefore protected by Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the State's appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, with the result that the writ petition was dismissed. The Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, but there was no order regarding costs.
ORDER OF REFERENCE D. FALSHAW, C.J. :- D/-25-09-1963.
These are two appeals filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of Gosain, J., partially allowing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by one of the appellants, Jit Singh.
2. In the petition the prayer was for the quashing of the whole scheme of consolidation and repartition proceedings relating to the village of the petitioner Ghariala on certain grounds one of which was that it was proposed in the scheme to allot 400 kanals or 50 acres of land to provide income for the Panchayat. The learned Single Judge without discussing any of the other grounds on which the scheme was challenged accepted the petition to the extent of setting aside the scheme so far as it related to the provision of land for furnishing income to the Panchayat on the strength of the decision of the Full Bench in Munsha Singh v. State of Punjab, 1960-62 Pun LR 1 : (AIR 1960 Punj 317).
3. Against this order appeals have been filed by Jit Singh who claims that the scheme should have been set aside as a whole and by the State. Regarding the appeal of the State it must be said at once that it has to be allowed on account of the fact that since the decision of the learned Single Judge the law was amended so as to legalise the allotment of land to the Panchayat for its income and the validity of the amending law has been upheld by this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the scheme should be set aside in any case on the ground of the reservation of land for a number of other purposes which have been held to be outside the scope of the Act by Mehar Singh and Dua, JJ., in L. P. A. 100 of 1961, Gurdas Singh v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, D/-28-1-1963 : (AIR 1964 Punj 117). A very large number of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted in which schemes of consolidation in various villages have been attacked on the grounds of reservation of land for water channel, roads, schools, hospitals, tonga and lorry stands and other purposes, and apart from the fact that the decision to which I have just referred seems to me to require reconsideration, there has also been some amendment of the Act, the validity of which will presumably be challenged in these petitions although the Amending Act has been passed after many of them were filed. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that these appeals as well its other petitions relating to alleged illegal reservation of lands in consolidation schemes should be collected together and heard by a Full Bench at an early date.
5. A. N. GROVER, J. :- I agree.
(OPINION OF THE FULL BENCH)
A. N. GROVER, J. :- These two appeals (Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 131 of 1960 and 182 of 1960) filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of Gosain, J., dated 19th January, 1960, have been referred for decision to a Full Bench owing to the pendency of a large number of petitions in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in which schemes of consolidation in various villages have been attacked on grounds of reservation of land under Section 18(c) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (hereinafter called the Act) for various common purposes.
2. Before the facts are set out, it is necessary to notice the provisions in the Act and the amendments made therein from time to time which are relevant, together with the previous decisions of this Court which necessitated those amendments. According to the preamble, as it stood before the amendment by Punjab Act 27 of 1960, the Act was meant to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings. Section 2(bb) defined "common purpose" to mean any purpose in relation to any common need, convenience or benefit of the village. Section 18(c) provided :-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the tim
