1966 (3) TMI 99 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and scope of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 10 of 1953 (Ceiling Act).
2. Permissible area for displaced persons under the Ceiling Act.
3. Application of the conversion formula for determining permissible area.
4. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation principles.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation and Scope of the Second Proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Ceiling Act:
The judgment addresses the common questions relating to the interpretation and scope of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Ceiling Act). The primary contention revolves around whether the permissible area for displaced persons should be calculated in standard acres or ordinary acres, and whether the conversion formula applies.

2. Permissible Area for Displaced Persons:
The petitioners, all displaced persons, argued that the permissible area should be 50 standard acres irrespective of whether such land exceeds 100 ordinary acres. The State contended that the permissible area should be either 50 standard acres or 100 ordinary acres, whichever is less. The court examined the legislative history and amendments to the Ceiling Act, noting the changes in the definition of "permissible area" and "standard acre" over time.

3. Application of the Conversion Formula:
The court analyzed various judgments and orders from Financial Commissioners and different benches of the court. It considered the interpretation that the permissible area for a displaced person should be calculated in standard acres if the allotment is in standard acres, and in ordinary acres if the allotment is in ordinary acres. This interpretation was supported by the phrase "as the case may be" in the proviso, which indicates that the calculation method depends on the nature of the allotment.

4. Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation Principles:
The court emphasized that the Legislature's intention should be derived from the language used in the statute. It highlighted the principle that every word in a statute is presumed to have been inserted with a purpose. The court rejected the interpretation that would require reading additional words into the proviso, such as "whichever is less," as it would conflict with the phrase "as the case may be." The court also noted that the proviso aims to provide a complete and separate definition of permissible area for displaced persons, distinct from the general provisions in the purview of Sub-section (3).

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the permissible area for displaced persons should be calculated based on the nature of the allotment-50 standard acres if the allotment is in standard acres, or 100 ordinary acres if the allotment is in ordinary acres. The impugned orders reducing the holdings of the petitioners below 50 standard acres were quashed, and the permissible area was confirmed as 50 standard acres for those with allotments in standard acres. For those with allotments in ordinary acres, the permissible area was confirmed as 100 ordinary acres. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, with parties bearing their own costs.