Holding

The classification under Annexure A of the Rules is constitutionally valid and the surplus land is correctly treated as unirrigated and valued at nine annas per standard acre.

Summary

The appellants, displaced persons, were allotted sailab land which later fell under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Revenue authorities, applying the Act, allowed each appellant only 50 standard acres and declared the balance surplus. The appellants contended that the classification of land in Annexure ‘A’ of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 was arbitrary, violated the Act’s requirement to consider yield and soil quality, and that the surplus land should not be valued as unirrigated. A single High Court judge set aside the revenue orders, but the Division Bench reversed that decision. The Supreme Court held that the Rules’ classification complied with s.2(5) of the Act, that the surplus land was correctly treated as unirrigated and valued at nine annas per standard acre, and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 (Annexure A) are ultra vires of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for not adhering to the requirement of considering quantity of yield and quality of soil.
Whether the surplus land in Karnal district should be classified as unirrigated and valued at nine annas per standard acre, or whether it falls under sailab/adna sailab and carries no valuation.
Whether the provisions of Rule 2, provisos (a) to (c) of the Rules apply to the appellants' land.

Legislation cited

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953s. 2(3), s. 2(5), s. 27, s. 5
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953s. Annexure A, s. Rule 2

Subjects

land tenuresurplus landclassificationPunjab Security of Land Tenures Actstandard acrevaluationdisplaced personsrevenue lawrule-makingultra vires

Judgment

A

330

SANT SINGH NALWA & ANR.

B v.
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER,
HARYANA & ORS., ETC.

March 30, 1981

c (S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND A.N. SEN, JJ.]

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, S. 2(5) and Punjab Security of ~
Land Tenures Rules 1953-Annexure 'A'-Classification of land according to
quantity of yield aud quality of soil-Whether valid.

The appellants who were displaced persons were allotted land which was
D · entered as sailab land in the revenue records and they became the owners of these
lands. After the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,
1953, the Revenue Authorities pro~eeded to determine the permissible area of
the land of the appellants under section 2(3). They allowed 50 standard acres of
land to each of the appellants and declared the balance as surplus land.

The appellants claimed that the lands allotted to them as displaced persons
E fell in a portion of District Karna! which was sailab and adna sailab and accord-
ing to the classification made under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules,
1953 they did not carry any valuation. The Collector dismissed their application.

The Commissioner dismissed their appeals holding that the Collector was
right in treating the surplus area as an unirrigated areas and valuing the same at
nine annas per standard acre.
F
A single Judge accepting the contention of the appellant in his writ petition
set aside the orders of the Revenue Court. The Financial Commissioner filed an
appeal which was allowed· by the Division Bench and the writ petition was
dismissed.

In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants
G that : (!)whereas sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act directed the Government
to frame Rules after considering the quantity of the yield and quality of soil, in
the Rules framed by the Government the main guide-lines laid down by sub-sec-
tion(S)were not followed, and the classification made by the Rules under Annexure
'A' was arbitrary without determining the quantity of the yield and quality of the
soil, and (2) that even if the classification made in Annexure 'A' was valid, the
H Reveuue Courts as also the High Courts committed an error of law in misconstru-
ing the classification and in arbitrarily placin2 the surplus area in the category of
unirrigated land.
SANT SINGH V. FINANCIAL COMMR. HARYANA 331

Dismissing the appeals,

HELD : l(i) The view of the single Judge is not in consonance with the A
scheme and spirit of the Rules framed under the Act and is bassed on a wrong
y interpretation !of the nature, extent and ambit of the classification made in
Annexure 'A'. The classification is in accordance with provisions of sub-section
(5) of section 2 of the Act and is, therefore, constitutionally valid. [337 E-F, G]

(ii) The Land Resettlement Manual prepared in 1952 by Tarlok Singh shows B
that the classification has been made in a very scientific manner after taking into
consideration all the relevant factors. The Punjab Settlement Manual (4th
Edition) prepared by Sir James M. Douie though possessing unimpeachable
authenticity was made Jong ago arid since then there have been great changes
resulting from various steps taken by the Government for improving the nature
and character of the land and the irrigation facilities. Even so, the classification
made by Sir James Douie has been adhered to broadly and basically by Tarlok
Singh in his Manual which forms the pivotal foundation for. the schedule
c
containing Annexure 'A' framed under the Rules. [335H-336 CJ

(iii) The classifications of land like barani, sailab, abi, nehri, chahi etc. are
clearly mentioned in the Punjab Settlement Manual.f The Rule Making Authority
0

has not in any way either departed from the principles mentioned in sub-section(5)
of section 2 of the Act or violated the guidelines contained therein, nor could it
be said that the classification made under the Rules has not been made. according
D
to the quantity of yield or the quality of the soil. [336 C, D-E]

(iv) If the dominant object of the act was to take over the surplus area
according to the formula contained in various provisions of the Act particularly
sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 2, there is no material on the record to show
that the Rules do not fulfil or carry out the object contained in the Act. [336 G]
E
Jagir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 44 (1965) Lahore Law
Times 143, approved.

2.(i) There was no error in the classification made by the revenue authori-
ties. So far as Karna] District was concerned, there was no sailab land at the
time when the Rules were framed and the classification was made. Even if the
land in question could be treated as sailab and equated with the land in
Sonepat then the valuation would have been at 12 annas which could be more
F
deterimental to the interest of the appellants. The Collector and the Commis-
sioner have rightly treated the land as unirrigated which is the lowest category
and whose valuation is given as nine annas per acre. [338C, BJ

(ii) The three categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 2 do not
cover the land of the appellants which is sailab or adna sailab and therefore,
they cannot be given the benefit of any of these three sub-clauses of the proviso.
[339 A] G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 490 and
2228 (N) of 1970. .
·,, Appeals by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated
....t 9-10·1969 & 14-1-1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in H
·,,,,•· · Letters Patent.Appeal Nos. 553 of 1968 & 570 of 1969 respectively.
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981) 3 S.C.R,

A Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants (In both the
Appeals.)

K.C. Bhagat and R.N. Podar for the Respondent (in both the
Appeals)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
FAZAL Au, J. These two appeals by certificate are directed
against judgments dated 9.10.69 and 14.1.1970 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 553 of 1968 and
570 of 1969 hy which the contentions raised by the appellants ini
the two appeals were rejected. After the matter came up in ths
c Court the two appeals were consolidated as they arose out of almost
the same sqbject-matter and involved identical points. The facts
whieh have given rise to these appeals lie within a very narrow com-
pass and may be briefly summarised thus.

The appellants were refugees from Pakistan and Sant Singh
D Nalwa was allotted 63 standard acres and 8! units in village Margha-
in and another area of l 9 standard acres and 5! units in Garden
Colony in Jundla which were entered as sailab land in the revenue
records. The other appellant, Kartar Kaur, was allotted 96 acres,
3 bighas and 13 biswas in the same district. These lands were given
to the appellants as they were displaced persons. After the appellants
E had become owners of the lands, the State of Punjab passed the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Act') which later applied to Haryaria also, under which every
land owner whether a displaced p~rso1, allotte~ ot· otherwis~ c:rnld
not retain any area of latid which fell beyond the extent prescribed
by sub-section (3) of s. 2 of the Act.
F After the coming into force of the Act the revenue authorities
/
proceeded to determine the permissible area of the land of both the
appellants so that the area which was found to be in excess may be
t
taken over by the State after paying the compensation as provided
in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, viz., The Punjab Security
of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). In
G order to determine the permissible area the Act contains certain pro-
visions by which the entire area held by a land OW!Jer has to be
converted into standard acres on the basis of a formula contained in
sub-section (5) of s. 2 of the Act which defines 'standard acre'
thus : •
H
" 'Standard acre' mean& a meas11re of area convertible
int© ordinary acrc.s of any clat>s 0f land a~eordin~ to the
SANT SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMR. HARYANA (Fazal Ali, J.) 333

prescribed scale with reference to the quantity of yield and A
quality of soil."

Similarly, the relevant portion of sub-section 5-a which defines 'Sur-
plus Area' may be extracted thus :

" 'Surplus Area' means the area other than the reserved B
area, and, where no area has been reserved, the area in
excess of the permissible area selected (under section 5-B or
the area wpich is deemed to be surplus area under sub-
section (!) of section 5C) (and includes the area in excess
of the permissible area selected under section 19-B) but it
will not include a tenant's permissible area; ... " C

So far as the appellant, Sant Singh Nalwa, was concer-
ned, the revenue authorities held that he was entitled to
retain 50 (fifty) standard acres being the permissible area and
the balance of 13 standard acres and odd units was declared as sur-
plus. Similarly, in the case of the other appellants, Kartar Kaur, D
she was allowed to retain 50 standard acres and about 15 standard
acr.:s of land was taken over being surplus. In the instant appeals,
there is no dispute that the formula by which the extent of the land
in possession of the appellants had been converted into standard
acres was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The
only point that was canvassed before the revenue authorities as also E
in the High Court centred round the question of the nature of the
land and the valuation thereof for the purpose of assessing compen-
sation. The appellants case was that as the lands which had been
. declared ;urplus or for that matter the entire lands/allotted to them
as displaced persons fell in a portion of District Karna) which was
sailab and Adna sailab and therefore according to the classification F
made under the Rules they did not carry any valuation.
Sant Singh Nalwa challenged before the Collector the validity
of declaration of the. surplus area and contested the valuation put
by the Collector. The Collector dismissed the application by his
Order dated 13.3.1963 and held that 13 standard acres and 61 units G
of the land had to be declared surplus. Against this Order, Sant
Singh filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ambala
Division where the only point raised by him was that the area was
not correctly evaluated. His main grievance was that the area in
question was equated with Barani land and valuated at the rate of H
unirrigated area as given in the valuatian statement of the Karna!
District under Annexure 'A' of the Rules. The main contention of
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981) 3 S.C.R.

A the appellants before the Commissioner as also before us was that as
the surplus area does not fall under any of the categories mentioned
in Annexure 'A' it carried no valuation at all. The Commissioner,
however, dismissed the appeal holding that the collector was right in
treating the surplus area as an unirrigated area and valuing the same
at 9 annas per standard acre.
B
Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High
Court which was allowed by the Single Judge by his Order dated
July 23, 1963. The Single Judge set aside the orders of revenue
courts and accepted the contention of the appellant. Against this
order, the Financial Commissioner filed an appeal under Letters
c Patent before a Division Bench of the High Court which by its judg-
ment dated l-9.10.69 allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ peti-
tion filed by the appellant before the High Court.

Similarly, Kartar Kaur, the other appellant also filed an appeal
before the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division regarding the
D surplus land and having failed there, filed a writ petition in the High
Court on 10.2.1965 which was ultimately dismissed on 10.10.69 and
the appeal under Letters Patent against the said Order of the Single
Judge was also dismisse_d on 14.1.70.

Thus, the position is that both the appellants failed to get any
E
redress from the High Court which ultimately confirmed the orders
of the Revenue courts.

The learned counsel for the appellants raised two contentions
before us. In the first place, it was argued that the Revenue courts
as also the High Court were in error in holding that the surplus
F
area was rightly evaluated in as much as the classification made
under the Rules was ultra vires as being in direct disobedience to the
mandate contained in sub-section (5) of s. 2 of the Act. In other
words, it was argued that whereas sub-section (5) directed the
Government to frame Rules after considering the quantity of the
G
yield and quality of soil, in the Rules framed by the Government
under its rule making power given to it by the Statute the main
guidelines laid down by sub-section (5) were not followed and the
classification made by the Rules under Annexure 'A' was arbitrary
without determining the quantity of the yield and the quality of the
soil. We might mention here that this contentfon appears to have
H found favour with the Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the
appellant, Sant Singh Nalwa but the judgment of the Single Judge'
SANT SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMR. HARYANA (Fazal Ali, J.) 335

as already indicated, was reversed by the Division Bench in the A
Letters Patent appeal.

Secondly, it was contended that even if the classification made
in Annexure 'A' was valid, the Revenue courts as also the High
Court committed an error of Law in misconstruing the classification
and in arbitrarily placing the surplus area in the category of unirri- B
gated land.
Coming now to the first point raised by the appellants regard-·
ing the constitutionality of the Rules framed under the Act, after
hearing the counsel for the parties we find no merit in this conten-
tion. Sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act 1'.merely requires C
that the Rule :should classify the land according to the quantity
of the yield and quality of the soil. The Rules have classified
the land by preparing a schedule consisting of various Annexures
which divide the lands according to the quantity of yield and
quality of the soil into various categories. A perusal of the
Annexures to the Rules clearly shows that the valuation statement D
and the class of land has been described not only as being
applicable to one place or the other but in view of the entire
topography of every district or tehsil, it is manifest that in a peculiar
State like Punjab and Haryana diverse factors, namely, the situation
or position of the. land, its nearness to the river, the irrigation
facilities, the ravages of flood, the fertility of the land and its pro- E
duce and various other similar circumstances have to be taken into
consideration in determining the nature and character of the land.
As far back as 1952, a Land Resettlement Manual was prepared by
Tarlok Singh, which was relied upon by the judgment of the Single
Judge and at p. 287 the land has been classified in following
categories : F
"Chahi and Abi
Chahi
Nehri
Unirrigated
Nehri Non-Perennial or other Nehri
or Nehri-Inundation" G
This classification varies from District to District and Tarlok
Singh has also given the approximate value of the land. After going
through the Land Resettlement Manual we find that the classification
has been made in a very scientific manner after taking into conside- H
ration the relevant factors. Even Sir James M. Douie in his Punjab
Settlement Manual (4th Edition), which is undoubtedly a work of
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 3 S.C.R.

A unimpeachable authenticity, as pointed out by the Single Judge, had
made a classification which is almost similar to the one made by
Tarlok Singh. It is, however, obvious that the Punjab Settlement
Manual by Sir Douie was made Jong ago and since then there have
been great changes resulting from various steps taken by the. Govern-
ment for improving the nature and charcter of the land and the
B irrigation ·facilities. It is, therefore, not possible for us to rely on
the Manual prepared by Sir Douie as the Single Judge had done be-
cause that would not be an objective assessment. Even so, the
classification made by Sir James Douie has been adhered to broadly
and basically by Tarlok Singh in his Manual which forms the pivotal
foundation for the schedule containing Annexure 'A' framed under
c the Rules. The classification of land like barani, sailab, abi, nehri, ...----
chahi, etc., are clearly mentioned in para 259 of Sir James's Punjab
Settlement Manual which Sarkaria, J., as he than was, rightly
classed as the Bible of Land Revenue Settlement. The point,
however, that has to be considered in this case is whether the rule
making authority has in any way departed from the mandate given
D or the guidelines contained in the Act. There does not appear to
be any material to show that the Rule Making Authority has in any
way either departed from the principles mentioned in sub-section (5)
of s. 2 of the Act or violated the guidelines contained therein. The
appellants were not able to show that the classification made under
the Rules has not been made according to the quantity of the yield
E or the quality of the soil. Neither any affidavit nor any document
has been produced before the courts below to prove t~is fact. In
this state of the evidence the Single Judge was not justified in stri-
king down the Rules as being ultra~vires.

Moreover, it is obvious that the Rules were made under
F section 27 of the Act which authorises the Government to make
rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. If the dominant
object of the Act was to take over the surplus area according to the
formula contained in various provisions of the Act particularly sub-
sections (3} and (5) of s.2, there is no material on the record to show
that the Rules do not fulfil or carry out the object contained in the
G Act. Moreover, in Jagir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and
Ors.(1} a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court while consider-
ing a similar contention rejected the argument that the Anilexure
framed . under the Rules was bad as it did not consider the nature
H
(1) 44 (1965] Lahore Law Times 143.
SANT SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMR. HARYANA (Fczal Ali, J.) 337

and quality of the Soil. In this connection, the Division Beneh A
observed thus :-

"Jt is thus clear that the formation of an assessment
circle neessarily takes into consideration the various factors
mentioned by the learned author and those include the
nature of soil and its quality apart from various other B
factors affecting the yield. The circumstance, therefore,
that in the Annexure the State of Punjab has been split up
into assessment circles, as determined at the time of the
Settlement, is highly significant and leaves no doubt that
the nature and the quality of the soil inherent in the for-
mation of an assessment circle have been taken into con- c
sideration for valuing the land for purposes of its conversion
into standard acres. At the same time, the existing sources
of irrigation have all been taken into consideration. It is, in
the circumstances, impossible to agree that the Annexure
in any manner violates the direction contained in the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act.
D

We are, in the circumstances, unable to agree that the
disputed rule and Annexure 'A' attached to the Rules are
ultra vires the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act."
E
We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations
made by the High Court and endorse the same. With due
respect, the view taken by Sarkaria, J., as he then was, (the single
Judge in the instant case) is not at all in consonance with the
scheme and spirit of the Rules framed under the Act and is based on
a wrong interpretation of the nature, extent and ambit of the classi-
F
fication made in Annexure 'A'.
We, therefore, fully agree with the Division Bench judgment
of the High Court that the classification is in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (5) of s. 2 of the Act and is, therefore,
constitutionally valid. The first contention put forward by the
counsel for the appellants is therefore overruled. G
Coming now to the second c_ontention that even if the classi-
fication is correct, the revenue authorities were wrong in treating
the surplus land in dispute as unirrigated area. We find no substance
in this argument. The relevant Annexure which gives the surplus H
land in District Karna! is to be found at page 308 of the compila-
tion of Punjab & Haryana Local Acts (vol. VII) where while lands
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 S.C.R.

A classified as Chahi, Abi, Nehri, Unirrigated and Nehri/Non-peren-
nial are mentioned, there is no mention of sailab or adna sailab
lands. Whereas at page 306 in the same volume there is no sailab
land except in tehsil Sonepat. Thus, it appears that so far as Kamal
District is concerne,d, there was no sailab land at the time when the
Rules were framed and the classification was made. Even if the
B land in question could be treated as sailab and equated with the land
in Sonepat then the valuation W'>Uld have been at 12 annas as shown
at p. 306 of the aforesaid compilation, in which case this would be
more detrimental to the interests of the appellants. The Collector
and the Commissioner have therefore rightly treated the land as
unirrigated which is almost the lowest category and whose valuation
c is given as 9 annas per acre. We, therefore, find no error in the
classification made by the revenue authorities.
We are unable to agree with the counsel for the appellants that
as the land in question did not fall in any of the heads of classifica-
tion made in District Kamal they will carry no value at all because
D this is directly opposed to the various schemes of the classification
made under the Rules. A subsidiary contention in this very argu-
ment was that the land should have been valued~in accordance with
Rule 2, provisos (a) to (c), which may be extracted thus :

"2. Conversion of ordinary acres into standard acres.
The Equivalent, in standard acres, of one ordinary acre of
E
any class of land in any assessment circle, shall be determi-
ned by dividing by 16, the valuation shown in Annexure 'A'
to these rules for such class of land in the said assessment
circle;
Provided that the valuation shall be -
F (a) in the case of Banjar Qadim land, one-half of the value
of the class previously described in the records and in
the absence of any specific class being stated, one-half
of the value of the lowest barani land.
G (b) in the case of Ba11jar Jadid land, seven-eighth of the
value of the relevant class of land as previously enter-
ed in the records, or in the absence of specified class in
the records of the lowest barani land; and

H (c) in the case of cultivated thur land subject to water-
logging, one-eighth of the value of the class of land
shown in the records or in the absence of any class, of
the lowest barani land."
SANT SINGH V. FINANCIAL COMMR. HARYANA (Fazal Ali, J.) 339

The three categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) as extrac- A
ted above do not at all cover the land of the appellants which is
sailab or adna sailab and therefore they cannot be given the benefit
of any of these three sub-clauses of the proviso. For these reasons,
the second contention is overruled.

The result is that we find no merit in the appeals which are B
accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as
to costs.

N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.