Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. N. SINGH, R. M. RASTOGI
JAHAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, SHIVPURI - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 116 Of 1988
Decided On : 02/10/1988
MADHYA PRADESH SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI-DHARAKON KA UDHAR DENE WALON KE BHUMI HADAPANE SAMBANDHI KUCHHKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM, 1976 - [ACT 19 OF 1976] - SECTION 2(C), 2(F), 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 - SUMMARY: The Madhya Pradesh Samaj ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon ka Udhar Dene Walon ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchkron Se paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (the 'Adhiniyam') is a permanent and perpetual statute enacted to protect weaker sections of the people from agricultural indebtedness and land grabbing designs of unscrupulous moneylenders. The Adhiniyam has retrospective as well as prospective operation and is not limited to a specific 'time-zone'. The Sub-Divisional Officer has the power to act suo motu under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, even in the absence of an application under Section 5, to nullify prohibited transactions of loan and restore possession of land to the holder of agricultural land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector, declaring certain land transactions as 'prohibited transactions of loan' under the Adhiniyam. The petitioners contended that the Adhiniyam was a temporary enactment and had expired, that the applicants were not 'holders of agricultural land' within the meaning of the Adhiniyam, that there was no finding recorded regarding the acknowledgment of receipt of consideration in the sale deeds, and that the petitioners were entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Adhiniyam was a permanent and perpetual statute with retrospective as well as prospective operation. The court also held that the Sub-Divisional Officer had the power to act suo motu under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, even in the absence of an application under Section 5. The court further held that there was no merit in the petitioners' contention that the applicants were not 'holders of agricultural land' within the meaning of the Adhiniyam, that there was no finding recorded regarding the acknowledgment of receipt of consideration in the sale deeds, and that the petitioners were entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the Adhiniyam is a temporary or permanent statute? 2. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer has the power to act suo motu under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam? 3. Whether the applicants were 'holders of agricultural land' within the meaning of the Adhiniyam? 4. Whether there was a finding recorded regarding the acknowledgment of receipt of consideration in the sale deeds? 5. Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Adhiniyam is a permanent and perpetual statute with retrospective as well as prospective operation. This is evident from the long title of the Adhiniyam, which states that it is an Act 'to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to in many a form by lenders of money while and after extending credit to them and matters connected therewith'. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer has the power to act suo motu under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, even in the absence of an application under Section 5. This is clear from the language of Section 6, which states that the Sub-Divisional Officer may act 'on his own motion in any transaction of loan' beside acting 'on receipt of an application under S. 5'. 3. The applicants were 'holders of agricultural land' within the meaning of the Adhiniyam. This is evident from the applications filed by the applicants, which stated their status, occupation, amount of loan, and area of the agricultural holding alienated. The non-applicants did not contest these statements of fact in their reply. 4. There was a finding recorded regarding the acknowledgment of receipt of consideration in the sale deeds. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector found that there was no acknowledgment of receipt of consideration to be read in the sale deed in each case. 5. The petitioners were not entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land. There was no factual foundation for such claim to be read in the records.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) THESE two matters we heard together because a common question of some importance bearing on the interpretation of a benignant statute is involved in these cases.
( 2 ) PETITIONERS in both cases have a common grievance that the private respondent, namely, respondent No. 3 in each case, was not entitled to avail the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon ka Udhar Dene Walon ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchkron Se paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, for short, the 'adhiniyam', for several reasons. However, the common contention of law in both cases is that the Adhiniyam must be read as a Temporary Enactment and not Perpetual one, or, in other words, enacted with a limited life, which has expired More precisely, Shri Arun Mishra, appearing for the petitioners, has contended the adhiniyam was meant to take care of certain past transactions and it had accordingly merely retrospective operation, in respect of a specified "time-zone".
( 3 ) THE several aspects of counsel's contention above-referred have indeed raised an important question of law for our decision. It is no doubt true that the Legislature is competent to enact both perpetual and Temporary statutes, but it is equally true that the life of a statute, when it is limited, clear indication of its intention in that regard is expressed by the Legislature by making an express provision in the enactment itself in that regard. Indeed, Emergency statutes, such as the Preventive Detention Act, 1949 or the Defence of India Act, 1962 are instances of the Legislature enacting Temporary statutes, when in terms the life of the statute and expiry the were mentioned. A permanent or perpetual statute is such which contains no provision indicating its limited life or duration of operation and would, therefore, continue to be operative indefinitely, to have evidently full force of law until the statute is either expressly or impliedly repealed. In any case, the position which cannot be disputed is that the extent or operation of a statute or its duration of operation has to be read in the provision of statute itself. Bearing this elementary principle of statutory interpretation, we scanned through the whole gamut of the matter enacted in the Adhiniyam beginning with the long title of the Adhiniyam, but our critical enquiry has confirmed our tentative view that counsel's contention is wholly meritless.
( 4 ) WE extract first the first clause of the long title of the Adhiniyam and also the fifth or the last clause, in extenso :"an Act to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to in many a form by lenders of money while and after extending credit to them and matters connected therewith. ""and whereas it is necessary to relieve the holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people from such exploitation by nullifying such past transaction of loan as also to put a stop to such transactions. " (Emphasis supplied)if anything can be read in the object of the enactment in the language used by the Legislature itself, there is little scope for any doubt that the Adhiniyam was enacted as a Permanent measure in the implementation of the Directive Principles enshrined in Art. 38 of the Constitution. Indeed, this view we have already expressed very recently in the case of Dayaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Misc. Petition No. 418 of 1984, decided on 4-2-1988 ). The Adhiniyam must be read as a piece of beneficent legislation meant for the protection of "whether Sections" of the people to secure to them social and economic justice, to relieve such people against such social evil and inequity as agricultural indebtedness". Those of "weaker sections" who are cared for by the Adhiniyam are agriculturists having small holdings, prone to exploitation and destitution, succumb
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
