Benami agricultural land transfers and tribal notifications: majority found partial invalidity for discrimination and limited statutory saving.

Section 13-A of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938 was analysed for whether its invalidation of benami transfers of agricultural land to persons outside notified agricultural tribes contravened Section 298(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The majority treated the provision as discriminatory where exclusion turned solely on descent and held that Section 298(2) saved only prospective laws prohibiting sales or mortgages of agricultural land, not provisions undoing completed prior transactions. On that basis, Section 13-A was inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency, and factual issues had to be remitted. Beaumont J. dissented, viewing the amendment as a valid anti-evasion measure.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 13-A of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, insofar as it voided benami transfers of agricultural land in favour of persons outside notified agricultural tribes, was inoperative for contravening Section 298(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and whether any part of its operation was saved by Section 298(2).

Analysis: The principal Act regulated permanent alienations and mortgages of agricultural land by reference to notifications defining agricultural tribes by descent and residence or holding of property. The amendment of 1938 declared void benami transactions where the beneficial interest passed to a person outside the same tribe or group, including transactions made before its commencement. The majority held that the legislation operated discriminatorily in some cases on the ground of descent alone, because persons who failed the tribal notification solely by reason of ancestry were disabled from acquiring or holding property. It further held that Section 298(2) saved only laws prohibiting sales or mortgages of agricultural land, and only prospectively, so it could not validate the provision so far as it purported to undo completed prior transactions or extend beyond the statutory saving.

Conclusion: Section 13-A was inoperative to the extent that it offended Section 298(1), and the matter had to be remitted for proper factual issues to determine whether the impugned mortgage fell within that invalid portion.

Dissenting Opinion: Beaumont J. held that the real basis of the impugned Act was to prevent evasion of the principal Act, not discrimination solely on the grounds specified in Section 298(1). On that view, the amendment was valid, and the appeal should have been allowed with dismissal of the suit.

---