1960 (9) TMI 123 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the petitioners can be arrested for default of nonpayment of loans recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
2. Interpretation of the term "sums due under this Act" in Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
3. The applicability of Section 30 of the Act to loans granted under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, and the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884.
4. The legislative competence of the Union Legislature in enacting Section 30 of the Act.
5. The relationship between the Central Act and the "Existing Indian Laws."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioners can be arrested for default of nonpayment of loans recoverable as arrears of land revenue:

The petitioners, displaced persons allotted land under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, obtained loans from the State Government for various purposes. These loans were advanced under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, and the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884, and are recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The State Government initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for the recovery of these loans, leading to the present petitions. The sole question is whether the petitioners can be arrested for nonpayment of these loans, which are admittedly recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

2. Interpretation of the term "sums due under this Act" in Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954:

The petitioners contended that the loans are "public dues" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act and are recoverable under the Act, thereby exempting them from arrest under Section 30. The State argued that these loans are due under the 1883 and 1884 Acts, not the Act, and can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, allowing for the petitioners' arrest. The Court examined the scheme and purpose of the Act, concluding that the term "sums due under this Act" includes sums payable or recoverable under the Act, not just those technically "owed." The Court emphasized that the words "payable" and "due" have been used synonymously in the Act to avoid defeating its purpose and leading to absurdity.

3. The applicability of Section 30 of the Act to loans granted under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, and the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884:

The Court noted that the Act and the Rules made thereunder treat loans granted by the Central or State Government before the conferment of permanent rights in land or payment of compensation as sums due under the Act. These loans are a first charge on the land allotted and are adjusted towards the compensation amount. The Court rejected the State's contention that the loans in question, being granted under the 1883 and 1884 Acts, cannot be considered sums due under the Act. The Court held that the Act's provisions for recovery of debts due under other enactments create a new relationship between the debtor and creditor, making the loans recoverable under the Act.

4. The legislative competence of the Union Legislature in enacting Section 30 of the Act:

The State argued that the grant and recovery of loans fall exclusively within the State's legislative field (Schedule VII, List II, item 18), and Section 30 of the Act, which relates to the concurrent field (Schedule VII, List III, item 27 or 41), is ultra vires to the extent it forbids arrest. The Court held that the Act, in pith and substance, deals with relief and rehabilitation, a matter within the Union Legislature's competence (Schedule VII, List III, item 27). The Court emphasized that incidental encroachment on the State field does not render the Act invalid, as the primary test is whether the impugned legislation is within the legislative authority's competence.

5. The relationship between the Central Act and the "Existing Indian Laws":

The Court examined the position of the 1883 and 1884 Acts vis-a-vis the Act, noting that these Acts are "Existing Indian Laws" kept alive by subsequent Constitution Acts. The Act is a valid Central Act that incidentally legislates on matters covered by these "Existing Indian Laws." The Court held that in a competition between the Central law and the "Existing Indian Law," the Central law prevails. The Court also noted that the provisions of the 1883 and 1884 Acts are general, while Section 30 of the Act is a special provision, which must prevail over the general provisions.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the Central Act is a valid piece of legislation and must prevail over the "Existing Indian Laws" to the extent of any conflict. The petitions were allowed, and the orders of arrest issued against the petitioners were quashed.