TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (8) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved for the village Panchayat and given over to it for diverse purposes, and other portions have been reserved either for non-proprietors or for the common purposes of the villages. Without going into too much detail it is sufficient to indicate that in village Virk Kalan 270 kanals and 13 marlas have been given to the village Panchayat for management and realisation of income, although the ownership is still shown in village papers as Shamlat Deh in the names of the proprietors and 10 kanals and 3 marlas have been reserved for abadi to be distributed among persons entitled thereto and 3 kanals and 7 marlas have been reserved for manure pits. Similarly, in village Sewana 400 kanals and 4 marlas have been set apart for the village Panchayat for extension of the abadi and to enable grants of 8 marlas of land to be made to each family of non- proprietors and 16 kanals have been reserved for a primary school and some more for a phirni. Similiarly, in village Mehnd, land has been reserved for the village Panchayat, a school, tanning ground, hospital, cremation ground and for non-proprietors. The proprietors were not paid compensation for the lands and it is the taking away and allotme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to them." On April 9, 1957 the Punjab Government added rule 16(ii) which provided for reservation of lands for the Gram Panchayat. It read : 16(ii) : In in estate or estates where during consolidation proceedings there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequate, land shall be reserved for the village Panchayat, under section 18 (c) of the Act, out of the common pool of the village at a scale prescribed by Government from time to time. Proprietary rights in respect of land, so reserved (except the area reserved for the extension of abadi of proprietors and non- proprietors) shall vest in the proprietary body of the estate -or estates concerned, and it shall be entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as (jumla malikan wa digar haqdaran arazi hasat rasad raqba). The management of such land shall be done by the Panchayat of the estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary body and the Panchayat shall have the right to utilize the income derived from the land so reserved for the common needs and benefits of the estate or estates concerned." Rule 16(ii) was declared ultra vires on November 5, 1959 by the Punjab High Court in Munsh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct follow up the result of this amendment we may say something about three other Acts of the Punjab legislature to which some reference will be necessity in the sequel. The Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1953 (4 of 1953) was passed to provide for better administration in the rural areas of Punjab by Panchayats. Section 19 of the Panchayat Act laid multifarious administrative duties on the Panchayat like sanitation, drainage, supply of water, looking after burial and cremation grounds, public health, providing schools, hospitals etc. and also emphasized- (f) pounds for animals; (n) the development of agriculture and village industries, and the destruction of weeds and pests; (o) starting and maintaining a grain fund for the cultivators and lending them seed for sowing purposes on such conditions as the Gram Panchayat may approve. (q) allotment of places for preparation and conservation of manure; (t) framing and carrying out schemes for the improved methods of cultivation and management of land to, increase production." The last was added in 1954. In the same year the legislature enacted the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (1 of 1954) with the object of regulating the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1958 (Civil Appeal No. 554 of 1962) was heard by the Bench which heard the said Letters Patent Appeal and both were dismissed on August 18, 1960. The High Court did not certify the judgments as fit for appeal but the appellants obtained special leave and Civil Appeals Nos. 553 and 554 of 1962 were filed. These appeals were heard together and they challenge the correctness of the decision in Jagat Singh's case((1962)64 P.L.R. 241.) and thus question the validity of the Amending Act 27 of 1960 because they contend it is in breach of Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. Rules 16(i) and (ii) are also challenged. They further challenge the Common Lands (Regulation) Act which is a part of the entire scheme. The High Court in Jagat Singh's case(I.L.R. (1960)1 Punjab 589) has held that Act 27 of 1960 gives retrospective validity to rules 16(i) and (ii) and the position which existed when Munsha Singh's case([1960] 3 S.C.R. 887) was decided does not obtain now. The High Court has also decided that Act 27 of 1960 is saved by Art. 31-A and the case of this Court in K. K. Kochuni v. State of Madras(3) which interpreted Art. 31-A, as amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned by the proprietors to the village Panchayat for the purposes of management in the manner described above and the conferment of proprietary rights on non proprietors in respect of lands in abadi deh is illegal and the several provisions of law allowing this to be done are ultra vires Art. 31 inasmuch as no compensation is payable or whether the law and the action taken are protected by Art. 31-A? The argument of Mr. Bishan Narain in these appeals was that they were covered by the Kochuni case([1960] 3 S.C.R. 887). In that case this Court observed that the Madras Marumakkathyam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955 was invalid by reason of Art. 19(1)(f) inasmuch as it deprived a sthanee of his properties and vested them in the tarwad contrary to Art. 19(1) (f). It was also held (as has been correctly summarized in the head- note) that it was not saved by Art. 31-A (as it then stood) because even if the sthnam properties held in janmam rights could be regarded as "estates", Art. 31-A did not protect them since, properly construed, the article envisaged agrarian reform only and provided for the acquisition, extinguishment, or modification of proprietary and various other kinds of subordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect, in order to save legislation effecting agrarian reforms, we have every reason to hold that those expressions have been used in their widest amplitude, consistent with the purpose behind those amendments." The expressions from Art. 31-A which were given such wide connotation were "any estate or of any rights therein" and "the extinguishment or modification of any such rights" occurring in Art. 31A(1). The Act there considered was the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953) as amended by Act 11 of 1955. It limited the area of land for "self cultivation", gave the tenants rights to purchase lands with them and in this way " modified" the rights of landlords. It also released excess land for redistribution. This was regarded to be agrarian reform and thus within the protection of Art. 3 1 -A. The observations of this Court in Thakur Raghubir Singh's case([1953) S.C.R. 1049) were explained and were confined to the facts of that case. Article 31-A was appa- rently not then viewed from the angle later adopted in the Kochuni case((19601 3 S.C.R. 887), namely, that Art. 31-A was concerned with "tenures" as such. There is reason to think that the Kochuni case was regarded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to an estate within the meaning of Art. 3 1 -A (2) (b) of the Constitution. The Kochuni case([1962] 1 S.C.R. 44,61) was decided on May 4, 1960 and the decision in the Assam case was given on April 4, 1961 but there is no mention of the dicta in the former case. -It was held that the rights which were extinguished undoubtedly constituted "rights in relation to an estate" and Mr. N. C. chatterjee who argued the case, conceded that this was so (see p. 730). The same conclusion regarding the meaning of the word "modification" was reached in Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India([1962] 2 S.C.R. 382) without adverting to Kochuni case(). See also State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain Singh and state of Bihar v. Umesh Jha([1962] 2 S.C.R. 687.). In the latter a provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, as amended by the Bihar Land' reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 which empowered the Collector to annual anticipatory transfers of land designed to defeat the object of the Act was held to be protected by Art. 31-A, though the section by itself did not provide for the "extinguishment or Modification" of any rights in an estate. It was justified as an integral part of a statute which....