1985 (7) TMI 373 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Repugnancy between the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953.
2. Vesting of rights in Shamlat-deh lands.
3. Applicability of Article 254 of the Constitution.
4. President's assent under Article 31-A and its implications.
5. The impact of agrarian reform legislation on evacuee property.

Summary:

1. Repugnancy between the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953:
The Supreme Court addressed the repugnancy between the Central Act of 1950 and the Punjab Act of 1953. The Central Act vested evacuee property in the Custodian, while the Punjab Act vested Shamlat-deh lands in the Panchayats. The Court noted a direct conflict between Section 8(2) of the Central Act and Section 3 of the Punjab Act, leading to the Custodian being divested of the Shamlat-deh lands.

2. Vesting of rights in Shamlat-deh lands:
The Court observed that prior to the partition, Shamlat-deh lands were owned by village proprietors in proportion to their other land holdings. Post-partition, the interest of Muslim proprietors who migrated to Pakistan vested in the Custodian under the Central Act. However, the Punjab Act of 1953 extinguished all private interests in Shamlat-deh lands and vested them in the Panchayats.

3. Applicability of Article 254 of the Constitution:
The Court analyzed Article 254, which deals with inconsistencies between Central and State laws. It concluded that the Central Act of 1950 prevails over the Punjab Act of 1953 due to repugnancy, as the latter was not reserved for the President's assent for this specific conflict.

4. President's assent under Article 31-A and its implications:
The Punjab Act of 1953 received the President's assent for purposes of agrarian reform under Article 31-A, not for resolving repugnancy under Article 254(2). The Court held that the President's assent for agrarian reform does not extend to resolving repugnancy with the Central Act.

5. The impact of agrarian reform legislation on evacuee property:
The Court upheld that the Punjab Act of 1953, being a measure of agrarian reform, falls under Entry No. 18 of the State List and is protected under Article 31-A. The Court emphasized that the Punjab Act aimed at rural development and equitable distribution of land, thus prevailing over the Central Act within the State.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal and holding that the Punjab Act of 1953 prevails over the Central Act of 1950 within the State of Punjab concerning Shamlat-deh lands. The Court recognized the agrarian reform nature of the Punjab Act, which aligns with rural welfare and community benefit.

Separate Judgment by Chinnappa Reddy, J.:
Justice Chinnappa Reddy concurred with the Chief Justice's conclusion, reiterating that the President's assent under Article 31-A does not automatically transform into assent under Article 254(2). He emphasized that the real issue is the effect of the Punjab Act on the Central Act, noting that the Punjab Act aimed at agrarian reform and did not conflict with the Central Act's administration of evacuee property.