Supreme Court Upholds Surplus Land Determination Under 1953 Act: Kirpal Singh vs. Kamla Devi (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 to proceedings initiated under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

CASE TYPE: Land Ceiling Law

Case Name: Kirpal Singh & Ors. vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 28 January 2020

Can a subsequent purchaser of land claim benefits under a new land ceiling act when the land was declared surplus under a previous act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the interplay between the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The court held that proceedings initiated under the 1953 Act must continue under that Act, even after the enactment of the 1972 Act. This decision impacts how surplus land is determined and managed in Haryana. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around land owned by Jaipal Singh in Haryana. On April 15, 1953, when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, came into force, Jaipal Singh owned 221.72 standard acres of land. This Act defined permissible area as 30 standard acres, and any land above that was considered surplus.

On July 28, 1960, the Collector declared 191.72 standard acres of Jaipal Singh’s land as surplus. Jaipal Singh’s appeals and revisions were dismissed, but the High Court allowed his writ petition on March 12, 1962, directing a re-determination of the surplus area.

While these proceedings were pending, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, came into effect. On June 18, 1974, Jaipal Singh sold 125 Kanal and 8 Marla of land to Mohan Singh. On May 12, 1978, the Collector exempted 150 standard acres and declared the remaining 36.47 standard acres as surplus.

Jaipal Singh provided Khasra numbers of the land sold to Mohan Singh in the surplus pool. Mohan Singh’s objection to vacate the land was rejected on October 11, 1983. However, on February 6, 1984, the Collector ordered that surplus land should first be taken from the owner’s land, and only if that was insufficient, from the vendee’s land.

The Commissioner reversed this order, stating that the surplus land vested with the State in 1960. The Financial Commissioner dismissed Mohan Singh’s revision on February 18, 1987. Mohan Singh then sold the land to the appellants on June 16, 1989.

A Single Judge of the High Court allowed Mohan Singh’s writ petition, remitting the matter to consider benefits under Section 8(3) of the 1972 Act. However, a Division Bench reversed this decision on April 21, 2010, leading to the current appeal by the subsequent purchasers.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The case began with the Collector’s order of July 28, 1960, declaring Jaipal Singh’s land as surplus under the 1953 Act. After appeals and revisions were dismissed, the High Court directed a re-determination of the surplus area on March 12, 1962. The proceedings remained pending when the 1972 Act came into force.

Mohan Singh’s objection to the notice to vacate the land was rejected by the prescribed authority on October 11, 1983. The Collector’s order of February 6, 1984, favoring Mohan Singh, was reversed by the Commissioner, who held that the surplus land had already vested with the State in 1960. The Financial Commissioner upheld this decision on February 18, 1987.

A Single Judge of the High Court allowed Mohan Singh’s writ petition on November 18, 2009, remitting the case to consider benefits under Section 8(3) of the 1972 Act. However, a Division Bench overturned this decision on April 21, 2010, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves two key statutes: the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

The 1953 Act defined “permissible area” as 30 standard acres (Section 2(3)) and “surplus area” as the area exceeding the permissible area (Section 2(5A)). The Act aimed to redistribute land by identifying and acquiring surplus land from large landholders.

The 1972 Act repealed the 1953 Act but included a saving clause in Section 33(2). This clause stated that proceedings for determining surplus area pending under the 1953 Act would continue as if the 1972 Act had not been passed.

Section 8(3) of the 1972 Act states that any land transferred after the appointed day in contravention of the Act would be deemed to be owned by the transferor when calculating surplus area. Section 9(3) of the 1972 Act requires that when selecting permissible land, the land owner must first include land transferred in contravention of Section 8.

Section 33 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, is crucial, which states:

“33. (1) The provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.
(2) The repeal of the provisions of the enactments mentioned in sub-section (1), hereinafter referred to as the said enactments, shall not affect-
(i) the applications for the purchase of land under section 18 of the Punjab Law or section 22 of the Pepsu Law, as the case may be, pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, which shall be disposed of as if this Act had not been passed;
(ii) the proceedings for the determination of the surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, under the provisions of either of the said enactments, which shall be continued and disposed of as if this Act and not been passed, and the surplus area so determined shall vest in, and be utilised by, the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
[(iii) the revisional power of the Financial Commissioner under Section 24 of the Punjab law or under sub-section (3) of section 39 of the Pepsu law, as the case may be, shall be exercised as if this Act had not been passed; and the area declared surplus in exercise of such revisional power shall vest in, and be utilized by, the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(iv) the power exercisable under section 32-BB of the Pepsu law, as the case may be, shall be exercised as if this Act had not been passed; and the area determined surplus in exercise of such power shall vest in, and be utilized by, the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that the powers of the Pepsu Land Commission under the Pepsu law shall vest in, and be exercised by, the Collector of the district concerned.]
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no authority shall pass an order in any proceedings whether instituted before or after the commencement of this Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.”

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 33(2)(ii) is central to the case, as it determines whether the 1953 Act or the 1972 Act applies to the pending proceedings.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they were entitled to the benefits of Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act. They contended that the land owner should first include his own land in the surplus pool, and only if that was insufficient, should the land of the vendee be included. They claimed that the determination of surplus area does not include the selection of land for the surplus pool.

The appellants submitted that Section 33(2)(ii) and (iv) of the 1972 Act should not be interpreted to mean that the provisions of the 1972 Act would not apply if proceedings had commenced under the 1953 Act. They argued that the selection of the surplus pool by the land owner should be made under the 1972 Act, and any selection inconsistent with its provisions is void.

The appellants relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chet Ram and another versus Amin Lal and others, AIR 1983 PH 50, arguing that a sale can only be void by the State but remains valid between the vendor and vendee. They argued that the land owner had misrepresented that the land sold was not in the surplus pool, and therefore, should not be allowed to deprive the vendee of the land.

The respondents argued that Section 8(3) of the 1972 Act could not be invoked because Section 33(2) of the 1972 Act clearly provides that the repeal of the 1953 Act would not affect proceedings for the determination of surplus area pending at the commencement of the 1972 Act. These proceedings should continue as if the 1972 Act had not been passed.

The respondents contended that the proceedings for determining surplus area of Jaipal Singh were pending under the 1953 Act when the 1972 Act came into force. Therefore, Section 33(2)(ii) creates a deeming fiction that eclipses the operation of the 1972 Act until the proceedings under the 1953 Act were completed.

The respondents further argued that the appellants were not bona fide purchasers, as they purchased the land after it had vested in the State Government and after the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had passed their orders. They also argued that the sale deed of June 18, 1974, was void as it was obtained after the commencement of the 1972 Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the proceedings for determination of surplus area initiated under the 1953 Act were required to be completed under the 1953 Act, or whether the provisions of the 1972 Act also became applicable.
2. Whether the determination of surplus land under the 1953 Act was confined only to the declaration of surplus, or whether the selection of plots for the surplus pool was also covered.
3. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act, which require the land owner to first include his own land in the surplus pool.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed each submission made by the parties and how each authority was used in the reasoning of the Court. The following tables demonstrate the same.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the legislative intent behind Section 33(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The court emphasized that the saving clause in Section 33(2)(ii) was clear and unambiguous: proceedings for determination of surplus area pending under the 1953 Act had to continue under that Act, as if the 1972 Act had not been enacted. This was not merely a procedural matter but a substantive direction by the legislature to ensure continuity and avoid disruption of ongoing processes.

The Court’s reasoning also reflected a concern for legal certainty and consistency. By adhering strictly to the statutory language of Section 33(2), the court aimed to prevent any ambiguity or confusion in the application of land ceiling laws. The court rejected the appellants’ arguments that sought to introduce provisions of the 1972 Act into proceedings that were expressly meant to be governed by the 1953 Act.

The Court also emphasized that the definition of “surplus area” under the 1953 Act was comprehensive and included the selection of land. This interpretation was crucial to reject the appellants’ argument that the selection of land should be governed by the 1972 Act. The Court’s analysis was thus rooted in a textual interpretation of the relevant statutes.

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), with factual aspects (30%) playing a secondary role.

Logical Reasoning

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kirpal Singh vs. Kamla Devi (2020) clarifies the interplay between the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The court unequivocally held that proceedings initiated under the 1953 Act must continue under that Act, even after the enactment of the 1972 Act. This decision was primarily based on a strict interpretation of Section 33(2)(ii) of the 1972 Act, which contains a saving clause for pending proceedings under the 1953 Act.

The Court rejected the appellants’ arguments that they were entitled to benefits under Sections 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act. The Court also clarified that the determination of surplus area under the 1953 Act includes the selection of land for the surplus pool. The Court emphasized that the statutory language of Section 33(2) was clear and unambiguous, and it was not open to the court to introduce provisions of the 1972 Act into proceedings that were expressly meant to be governed by the 1953 Act.

The judgment underscores the importance of statutory interpretation and the need to adhere to the legislative intent behind saving clauses. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that land ceiling proceedings initiated under the 1953 Act are completed under that Act, thereby maintaining consistency and avoiding any disruption in the application of land laws in Haryana. This ruling provides clarity on how surplus land is to be determined and managed in cases where proceedings were initiated under the 1953 Act but continued after the enactment of the 1972 Act.