1982 (8) TMI 228 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether a transfer in contravention of Section 19-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is void ab initio or only void qua the State but valid between the parties inter se.
2. Discordance between the judgments in Labh Singh v. Punjab Singh and Godhu v. Kanshi Ram regarding the interpretation of Section 19-A(1).
3. Executability of a decree involving land transferred to a big landowner in contravention of Section 19-A(1).
4. Interpretation of Sections 19-A and 19-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in relation to the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Void Ab Initio or Void Qua the State:
The core issue was whether a transfer in contravention of Section 19-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is void ab initio or merely void qua the State but valid between the parties. The court concluded that a transfer in contravention of Section 19-A(1) would be void only qua the State for the purposes of the Punjab Act, but would be valid and binding between the parties inter se. This interpretation ensures that while the State's right to utilize surplus land for resettlement is preserved, the transactions between private parties are not rendered completely void.

2. Discordance between Judgments:
The judgment addressed the discordance between the decisions in Labh Singh v. Punjab Singh and Godhu v. Kanshi Ram. Labh Singh's case had held that a transfer exceeding the permissible limit under Section 32-L of the Pepsu Act was null and void, thus non-existent in the eye of law. However, the court overruled this view, stating it did not adequately consider the harmonious construction of the statute. Instead, the court approved the view in Godhu's case, which held that such transfers are void only qua the State but remain valid between the parties.

3. Executability of Decree:
The judgment analyzed whether a decree involving land transferred to a big landowner in contravention of Section 19-A(1) is executable. The court found that the decree was not null and void and was, therefore, executable. The lower appellate court's reliance on Labh Singh's case was misplaced, and the decree should be considered valid between the parties, thus executable.

4. Interpretation of Sections 19-A and 19-B:
The court emphasized the need to interpret Sections 19-A and 19-B of the Punjab Act harmoniously, similar to Sections 32-L and 32-M of the Pepsu Act. The court noted that an overly literal interpretation of Section 19-A(2) would render Section 19-B redundant. Therefore, the court concluded that the provisions should be read together to ensure that while the State's rights are protected, the transactions between private parties are not entirely invalidated.

Conclusion:
The court held that a transfer in contravention of Section 19-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is void only qua the State and not between the parties inter se. The judgment in Labh Singh's case was overruled, and the view in Godhu's case was affirmed. The matter was remanded to the learned single Judge for a decision on merits in accordance with this interpretation. The court also addressed the executability of the decree, affirming the decree-holder's right to execute the decree despite the land being declared surplus and vested in the Haryana Government.