Broad construction of provincial land power sustains mortgaged land relief legislation and excludes repugnancy concerns.

A provincial law providing relief to mortgagors of land was upheld as within legislative competence because the entry on "land" was construed broadly to include mortgages of land and related restoration measures. The summary procedure before the Collector, restoration of possession, extinction of the mortgage, compensation, and the bar of civil court jurisdiction were treated as ancillary to that subject, and the entry on court jurisdiction supported the procedural framework. Because the Act fell wholly within the provincial field and agricultural land was excepted from the concurrent entries, no question of repugnancy arose under section 107. The legislation was therefore valid and not ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938 was within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under the entries relating to land and court jurisdiction, and whether repugnancy under the Government of India Act, 1935 arose.

Analysis: The Act was directed to relief of mortgagors in respect of land, with a summary procedure before the Collector and ancillary provisions dealing with restoration of possession, extinction of the mortgage, compensation, and bar of civil court jurisdiction. The relevant constitutional entries were construed broadly. The word "Land" in Item 21 of the Provincial Legislative List was held to include land generally, not merely agricultural land, and the words following it were treated as explanatory rather than restrictive. Mortgages of land were regarded as matters incidental and ancillary to land and therefore within Item 21, while Item 2 supported the provincial power to regulate the jurisdiction and procedure of courts in relation to such matters. The Act was further confined to agricultural land in the sense relevant to the entry, and the concurrent entries dealing with transfer of property, contracts, and succession did not control the field because agricultural land was expressly excepted. Since the Act was held to fall wholly within the provincial field, no resort to the Concurrent Legislative List was necessary, and therefore the doctrine of repugnancy under section 107 did not arise.

Conclusion: The Act was validly enacted and was not ultra vires the Provincial Legislature.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned legislation was upheld as within provincial competence, so the challenge to its validity was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A provincial law dealing with restoration of mortgaged land and incidental court procedure is valid where, on a broad construction, it falls within the provincial entry relating to land and the ancillary power over court jurisdiction, without any need to invoke concurrent legislative power.

---