Atma Ram v. The State of Punjab and Others

_December_ _8._ 748 SUPREME COURT REIOR'IS ll9fi9] Eupp. ATMA RAM _v._ THE STATE OP PUNJAB AND OTHERS (and connected petition) ##### (S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, K. SuBBA RAo and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) _Land Tenure-Modification of landlord's rights in land-Enact-_ _ment-Con1pctc11cc_ _of_ _State Legislature-Constitutional_ _validity-_ _Punjab Security_ _of_ _Land Tenure Act (Punj. X_ _of_ _I95J), as_ _amend-_ _ed_ _by Act_ _XI_ _of_ _I955._ _s._ _I8-Co11stit11tion_ _of_ _India, Arts. I4, I9,_ _JI,_ _JIA,_ _246(3), Entry IS, List_ _II,_ _Seventh Sched11le-P11njab Land_ _Revcn11e_ _Act (P1tnj._ _XV II of I887),_ _ss._ J(I), J(J). The point in controversy in these petitions was the constitutional validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (Punj. X of 1953). as amended by Act XI of 1955. which sought to "provide for the security of land-tenure and other incidental matters". The impugned Act which admittedly dealt with holdings as defined by the Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 1887, limited the area which might be held by a land-owner for the purpose of self-cultivation and thereby released surplus area to be utilised for resettling ejected tenants; and by s. 18 conferred upon the tenants the right to purchase from the land-owners the lands held by them and thus themselves to become the landowners on prices which would be below the market value. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners, who were landowners,affected by the impugned Act, that under Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State Legislature was incompetent to enact a law limiting the extent of the land to be held by a land-owner and that the provisions of the impugned Act contravened the petitioners' fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. _Held,_ that the contentions must fail. The words "rights in or over land" and "land tenures" occurring in 'Entry 18 in List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution \Vere sufficiently comprehensive to include measures of land-tenure reforms, such as the impugned Act, that sought to limit the extent of land in cultivating possession of the landov:ner in order to release larger areas of land to be made available for cultivation by tenants and that Entry read with Art. 246(3) of the Constitution gave the State Legislature exclusive po\\·er to enact such measures. Such determination of the relation of landlord and tenant as was contemplated by s. rS and other provisions of the itnpugned ~\ct, vvhich sought to convert a tenant into a landowner, was well within the ambit of Entry 18. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORT$ 749 _The United Provinces_ v. _Mst. Atiqa Begum,_ [1940) F'.C,.R. IIO _:1958_ and _Megh Raj_ v. _Allah Rakhi,_ (1946) L.R. 74 I.A. 12, refetred to. It was beyond doubt that the impugned Act subst<i.ntially _Alma Ram_ modified the land-owner's rights to hold and dispose 1 [of ] [his ] v. modified the land-owner's rights to hold and dispose 1 [of ] [his ] v. property in any estate or portion thereof and thus fell within _Thi S1a11_ _of_ the purview of Art. 31A{1){a) of the Constitution and was _Punjab and Others_ immune from any attack on the ground that it contraveMd Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The observations made by this Court in _Thakur_ _Rpighubir_ _Singh_ v. _Court of Wards, Ajmer,_ [1953] S.C.R. 1049, in conhection with another Act, with absolutely different provisions, must be limited to the facts of that case and were wholly inappliQable. _Thakur Raghubir Singh_ v. _Court_ _of_ _Wards, Ajmer,_ [1953] S.C.\R. 1049, distinguished and held inapplicable. The words "any estate or of any rights therein" octurringin Art. 3rA(1)(a) read in the light of Art. 3rA(2) included any kinds of rights either quantitative or qualitative in the area encompassed by an estate or any portion of it and thus included holdings as defined by the Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 18~7, and any shares or portions thereof. Regard being had to the legal maxim that the greater must include the less, it was inappropriate to suggest that the Consti tution should have specifically mentioned "portion of an estate" ii: Art. 31A if .it intended to give that Article such a com~rehen­ s1ve construction. _Bhagirath Ram Chand_ v. _State of Punjab,_ A.LR. 1954 Pun. 167, approved. _State of Punjab_ v. _S. Kehar Singh,_ (1958) 60 P.L.R. 461, disapproved. _Ram Narain_ M~dhi v. _The State of Bombay,_ [1959] Stjr.pp. (1) S.C.R. 489, applied. _Hukam Singh_ v. _The State_ _of_ _Punjab,_ (1955) 57 P.L.R. 359, refe~d~ ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 176, 177 and 253 of 1956; 34, 35, 51-53, 69, 70, 75, 94 & l37 of 1957; 34, 58, 72, 90, 92, 106, 109 & ll5 of 1958. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitutfon of India. for enforcement of Fundamental rights. _0. B. Aggarwal_ and _Naunit Lal,_ for the peti~ioner (In Petition No. 176 of 1956). _Achhru Ram_ and _Na unit Lal,_ for the petition¢r (In Petition No. 177 of 56). _Naunit Lal,_ for the petitioner (In Petitions No11. 253/ 56; 34, 35, 51-53, 69, 70, 75, 94 and 137 /57; 34, 58, 92, 106, 109 & ll5/58). 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _f95B_ _Rrul,hey_ _Lal_ _Aggarwal_ and _A. G._ _Ratnaparkhi,_ for the _Atma_ _Ram_ . petitioner (In Petition No. 90/58). v. _H._ _N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India,_ _The State_ _of_ _S._ _M._ _Sikri, Advocate-General for_ _the_ _State_ _of_ _Punjab,_ _P_ _[4]_ _njab and Others Gopal_ _Singh_ and _T._ _M._ _Sen,_ for respondent No. 1 (In Petition No. 176/56). _S._ _M._ _Sikri, Advocate-General for the_ _State of Pun.iab,_ aud _T. M._ _Sen,_ for re~pondent No. 1 (In Petitions Nos. 177 & 253/56; 34, 35, 51-53, 69, 70, 75, 94 & 137 /57; 34, 58, 72, 90, 92, 106, 109 & 115/58). _R. S. Gheba,_ for respondent No. 3 (In Petition No. ' 90/58). _Dipak Dutta Chowdhury,_ for respondent No. 3 (In_ Petition No. 176/56). _Udai Bhan Chowdhury,_ for respondent No. 7 (In Petition No. 59/57) and respondent No. 3 (In Petition No. 70/57). _Harnam Singh_ and _Sadhu Singh,_ for the Interveners (In Petition No. 176/56). 1958. December 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by _Sinha_ _J._ SINHA, J.-These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution impugn the· constitutionality of th!) Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (Punj. X of 1953) (which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act), as a.mended by Act XI of 1955. The petitioners are land-owners of the lands affected by the provisions of the impugned Act. The State of Punjab and its officers, besides persons claiming benefits under the Act, are the respondents in these several petitions. The impugned Act has a history which may shortly be set out. With a view to providing for the security of tenure to tenants, the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Ordinance IV of 1950, was promulgated with effect from May 13, 1950. That Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act XII of 1950, which came into force on November 6, 1950, on the date on which it was first published in the Punjab Government Gazette. The Act prescribed a limit of one hundred standard _acres_ of land (equivalent to two hundred ordinary _acres)_ which could be (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 751 held by a land-owner for his "self-cultivation"; a.nd it _z958_ 1 was termed " permissible limit "-(s. 2(3) ). l\.ny land 1 was termed " permissible limit "-(s. 2(3) ). l\.ny land _Alma Ram_ ###### owner having land in excess o t f h e" permissible li\llit ", v. was authorized by s. 3 to select for" self-cultivation", _The Slate_ _of_ land out of the entire area held by him in the St11>te of _Punjab and Others_ Punjab, as land-owner, and reserve it for his owl). use to the extent of the " permissible limit". This ",right _Sinha_ _J._ of reservation " had to be exercised, first, in respect of land in his self-cultivation; and if the extent of, such land fell short of the " permissible limit ", he could, under s. 4, make up the deficiency by ejecting tefilants under him in respect of such lands as fell within his reserved area. Section 5 fixed the minimum period of tenancy as four years, subject to certain exceptions set out in s. 6. These were some of the salient featu11es of the Act of 1950, which itself was amended by the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act. (Punj.'V of 1951), which came into force on December 24, 1951. By the amending Act, the " permissible limit " ' was reduced to 50 standard _acres_ equivalent to 100 ordinary acres, and the minimum period of tenancy was raised ###### to five years. It also made provisions for preferential right of pre-emption-(s. 12A), and conferred a right of purchase on the tenant in respect of land ill his possession~(s. 12B), subject to certain exceptions(s. 120). Another legislation in this series was the Prevention of Ejectment (Temporary Powers) Ordinance No. 1 of 1952, which came into force on June 11, 1952. Then, came the Punjab Security of Tiand Tenure Act (Punj. X of 1953), now impugned, which repealed the aforesaid Acts XII of 1950 and V of 1951. It came into force on April 15, 1953. This Act itself was amended by Act LVII of 1953 and Act XI of 1955. Though this Act has undergone subsequent amendments in 1957 and 1958, we are not concetned with those amendments, because they came ~nto existence after this Court was moved under Art. 32 of the Constitution. We are concerned with the stat~ of the law as it stood after the amendment of 1~55, aforesaid. Before dealing with the grounds of attack u~ged against the impugned Act, it is convenient to set out, 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. in a nut-shell, the salient provisions of the Act, which ha.ve given rise to the present controversy, a.nd which _**Atma Ram**_ v. give a.n idea. of the scope .a.nd na.ture of the Jegisla.tion _The State_ _of_ now under examination. The Act ha.s a. short Prea.m_Punjab_ _and Othm_ hie, namely, "to provide for the security of la.nd tenure and other incidental matters ". The Act further _**Sinha**_ _]._ reduces the "permissible a.res." (s. 2(3) ) in relation to a. Ja.ndlord or a. tena.nt, to 30 sta.nda.rd _acres_ equivalent to 60 ordinary _acres,_ thus, releasing a larger a.rea for re-settlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected Qnder the provisions of the Act. So to. say, it creates a. pool of "surplus a.res." (s. 2(5-a.) ), meaning thereby the area other than the " reserved a.res. " in excess of the . " permissible area. ", a.s aforesaid. " Reserved area." means the area Ja.wfully reserved by the landlord under the provisions of the two Acts aforesaid, which were repealed by the Act-(s. 2(4) ). The definition of a tenant under the Act, includes a. sub.tenant a.nd a. self-cultiva.ting lessee-(s. 2(6) ). As a.lrea.dy indicated, a tenant also may be liable to be ejected from a.ny a.rea which he holds in a.ny capacity whatever in excess of the "permissible area.". Section 10-A authorizes the Sta.te Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, to utilize a.ny "surplus area " for re-settlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under the provisions of s. 9(i). But a. tenant inducted on to such :"surplus a.rea ",holds the Ia.nd under the land-owner, who, thus, becomes entitled to receipt of rent from the tenant. Section 12 la.ys down the maximum rent payable by a. tenant. Section 17 recognizes the rights of certain tenants to pre-empt sales or fore-closure of la.nd. Section 18, which formed the subject-matter of the most vehement a.tta.ck on behalf of the petitioners, confers upon the tenants of the description given in the severe.I clauses of the Aot, the right to purchase from the land-owner the la.nd held by them, subject to certs.in exceptions, a.nd subject to the payment in a. lump sum or in six monthly insta.lments not exceeding ten, ~f the purchase-price to be determined i.n a.coorda.nce with ols. (2) a.nd (3) of s. 18. Section 23 inva.lida.t.es any decree or order of a.ny court or authority, or a. notice (1) S.C.R. SUPltEME COURT REPORTS 753 of ejectment, which is not consistent with the provi- _r958_ sions of the Act. Thus, the Act seeks to limit th~ area. ~ _Alma_ _Ram_ which may be held y b a. Ian -owner ior the purpose d of v. ###### self-cultivation, thereby, releasing "surplus a.rea." n. stat• of which ma.y be utilized for the purpose of resettling _Punjab_ _and Others_ ejected tenants, a.nd affording an opportunity ~o the tenant to become the land-owner himself on payment _Sinha_ /. of the purchase-price which, if anything, would be less than the market value. It, thus, aims at cr~ating b a. d what it calls a. class of" sma.ll la.nd-owners ", me~ning thereby, holders of land not exceeding the " permissible area. "--(s. 2(2) ). The utmost emphasis ha.a been laid on self-cultivation which means" cultivation by a. land-owner either persona.Uy or through his wife or children, or through such of his relations as may be prescribed, or under his supervision "-(s. 2(9) ). The arguments a.t the Ba.r, on behalf of the' petitioners ma.y be put under three ma.in heads, nMnely, (1) that the Legislature ha.d no legislative competence to enact the Act, (2) that the provisions of the Act contravene the petitioners' fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 14, 19(l)(f) a.nd 31 of the Constitution, and (3) that certain specified provisions of the Act amount to unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners' rights to hold a.nd dispose of property. . At the outset, it is necessary to deal with the question of legislative competence, which was raised on behalf of some of the petitioners, though not on b,half of all of them. This argument of want of legislative competence goes to the root of the impugned Act,, and if it is well-founded, no other question need be gone ### into. It has been argued that Entry 18 in List lI of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, should, not be read as authorizing the State Legislature to enact a law limiting the extent of the land to be held py a. proprietor or a. landowner. Entry 18 is in these words: " 18. Land, that is to sa.y, rights in or over l~nd, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, a.nd the collection of rents ; transfer and alien8'tion of agricultural land; land improvement and ~gri­ cultura.l loans; colonization." _9$_ 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. ###### z958 It will be noticed that the Entry read along with Art. 246(3) of the Constitution, has vested exclusive power _**Atma Ram**_ - h S h h m t e tate to make laws wit respect to " rig ts in or ###### n. ;,~,. of over land, land tenures including the relation of _Punjab_ _and Others_ landlord and tenant ...... " The provisions of the Act set out above, deal with the landlord's rights in land _Sinha_ _J._ in relation to his tenant, so as to modify the landlord's rights in land, and correspondingly, to expand the tenant's rights therein. Ea.ch_ of the expressions "rights in or over land " and "lallet-tenures ", is comprehensive enough to take in measures of reforms of land tenures, limiting the extent of land in cultivating possession of the land-owner, and thus, releasing larger areas of land to·be made available for cultivation by tenants. Counsel for some of the petitioners who challenged the legislative competence of the State Legislature, were hard put to it to enunciate any easily appreciable grounds of attack against Entry 18 in List II of ###### the Seventh Schedule. It was baldly argued that Entry 18 aforesaid, was not intended to authorize legislation which had the effect of limiting the area of land which could be directly held by a proprietor or a ###### land-owner. It is difficult to see why the amplitude of the words "rights in or over land " should be cut down in the way suggested in this argument. A similar argument was advanced in the case of _The United_ _Provinces_ v. _M st. Atiqa Begum_ (' ). In that case, the United Provinces Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938 (U. P. XIV of 1938), was challenged. One of the main provisions of that Act had validated remission of ###### rent. It had been argued thatthe United Provinces Legislature was not competent to legislate a.bout the remission of rent, when the relevant words in Entry 21, relating to land in the Provincial List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution Act of 1935, were ###### "collection of rents". Entry 21 relating to" land" had added certain words by way of explanation and illustration of the intention of the Constitution-makers, so as to indicate that the word " land " was meant to be used in its widest connotation. A member of the (1) [1940] F.C.R. no. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 755 Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in his )udg- _z958_ ment which was the subject-matter of the appeal to the Federal Court, had come to the conclusion ·that _Atma Ram_ Item No. 21 aforesaid, including the words" collection _The_ :i~,. _of_ of rents", had not authorized the Provincial Legisla- _Punjab_ _and Others_ ture to validate remission of rent. That conclusion was not upheld by the Federal Court which held ·that _Sinha_ _J._ remission of rent was a matter covered by Item. No. 21, and. it was, therefore, within the competence o:ll' the Provincial Legislature to enact the impugned Act;,and Gwyer, C. J., in the course of his judgment obse11ved that the Items in the several lists of the Seventh Schedule, should not be read in a narrow or restricted sense, and that each general word should be hel4 to extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters which could fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in it. The same Item 21 in List II (Provincial List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution Act of 19~5, came up for consideration before the Judicial Comm it tee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Federal Court of India in _Megh_ _Raj_ _v. Allah Rakhi_ (1), affirming the judgment of the Lahore High Court. In that case, the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act (Punj. IV of 1938) had been challenged as _ultra_ _vires._ By that Act, the Legislature had provided for redemption of mortgages on terms much less onerous than the terms of the mortgage-deeds. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy CouncJI repelled the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the words of Item No. 21, were not wide enough to comprehend the relationship of mortgagol! and mortgagee in respect of agricultural land. Their Lordships observed that. Item 21 aforesaid, forming llo part, as it did, of the Constitution, should, on ordinary principles, receive the widest construction, unless, for some reasons, it is cut down either by the terms of that item itself, or by other parts of the Constitution~ which have, naturally, to be read as a whole; and. then proceeded to make the following very significant• observations :- (1) (1946) L.R. _74_ I.A. 12. 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _'95_ _[8 ]_ "As to item 21, "land", the governing word, is _Atm• Ram_ followed by the rest of the item, which goes on to say, ###### v. 'that is to say '. These· words introduce the most _The State of_ general concept-• rights in or over land '. ' Rights _Punjab_ _••d Others_ in land' must include general rights like full owner ship or leasehold or all such rights. ' Rights over _Sinha_ _J._ land' would include easements ·or other collateral rights, whatever form they might take. Then follow words which a.re nqt words of limitation but of explanation or illustration, giving instances which may furnish a clue for particular matters: thus there a.re the words 'relation of landlord and tenant, and collection ' of rents". Thus, their Lordships concluded that the Item 21 relating to land, would include mortgages as an incidental and ancillary subject. Another branch of the same argument was that Entry 18 could not cover the determination of the relation of landlord and tenant, which is envisaged by some of the provisions of the Act, particularly s. 18, which has the effect of converting the tenant into a land-owner himself, by virtue of the purchase. This argument is also disposed of by the judgment of the Federal Court in _United_ _ProviMe&_ v. _Atiqa Begum(')._ ###### It was next C()ntended that Entry 18 has got to be read with Art. 19(5), in order to determine the legislative competence in enacting the impugned statute. In other words, it was contended that cl. (5) of Art. 19 of the Constitution, is in the nature of a _proviso_ to the. Entry ; and that the Entry so read a.long with Art. 19(5), lays down the test of the legislative competenoo. This argument is easily disposed of with reference to the provisions of Art. 31-A of the Constitution. ##### If it is held that the provisions of the impugned statute lay down the law for the modification of rights in estates, as defined in sub-Art. (2) of Art. 31A, none of the grounds of attack founded on any of the provisions of Arts. 14, 19 or 31, can ave.ii the petitioners. As will presently appear, the Act lays down provisions which are in the nature of modifications of rights in estates within the meaning of Art. 31A(l). That being (1) (1940) F.C.R. no. **(1)** S.C.R. **SUPREME** **COURT** **REPORTS** ' 757 so, Art. 19(5) is wholly out of the way in this case. In _I95_ _[8 ]_ view of all these considerations, it must be held that _Atma_ _Ram_ there is no legal foundation for the contention that the v. impugned Act is beyond the legislative competenpe of _The_ _state_ _of_ the State Legislature. _Punjab_ _and Others_ Having dealt with the question of legislative ~ompetence, we have to deal with the several contentions _Sinha_ _J._ raised on behalf of the petitioners, with referen~e to the provisions of Arts. 14, 19 and **31** of the Constitution. On this part of the case, it has rightly peen ###### conceded on behalf of the petitioners that if the impugned Act comes within the purview of any o{ the clauses of Art. 31A, the law will be immune £rom attack on any of the grounds based on the provisions of Arts. **14,** 19 and 31. But it has been argued that the provisions of Art. 31A(l)(a), which are admitt¢dly the only portions of the Article, which are relevant to the present inquiry, are not attracted to the impugned ###### Act. It has been conceded on behalf of the respondents that the Act does not provide for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights in any estate. Hence, the crucial words which must goviern this part of the controversy, are the words "the extinguishment or modification of any such rights "; that is to say, we have to determine whether or not the impugned. Act provides for the extinguishment' or modification of any rights in "estates". Art. 3IA(2) defines what the expression" estate" used in Art. :HA means. According to that definition, " the expression "estate" shall, in relation to any local area, have ~he same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area, and shall also include any _jaqir,_ _inam_ or _Muaji_ or other similar grant and in the Sta.tes #### of Madras and Kera.la, any janmam right". It is common ground that we have to turn. to the definition of an estate, as contained in the Punjab Land-Revenue Act XVII of 1887. Section 3(1) of that Act has the following definition : " (1) "estate" means any area( a) for which a separate record-of-rights has been made; or 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I959] Supp .. (b) which has been separately assessed to land revenue, or would have been so assessed if the land _**Atma Ram**_ v. revenue had not been released, compounded for or - _The Stat• of_ redeemed ; or _Punjab_ _and Others_ (c) which the (State) Government may, by gene ra.I rule or special order, declare to be an estate". _Sinha]._ Clause (c) of the definition is out of the way, because it has not been claimed that the State Government bas made any declaration within the meaning of that clause. Estate, therefore, for the purposes of the present controversy, means any area for which a. separate record-of-rights has been made, or which has been separately assessed to land revenue (omitting the unnecessary words). In this connection, it is also necessary to refer to the definition of a holding in s. S(S) in the following terms : " (S) " holding " means a. share or portion of an estate held by one landowner or jointly by two or more landowners ". ##### It was not controverted at the Bar that in Punjab, there a.re very few estates as defined ins. S(l), quoted above, in the sense that one single land-owner is seized and possessed of an entire estate which is equated with a whole village. In other words, in Punjab, an estate and a village a.re inter-changeable terms, and almost all villages are owned in pa.reels, as holdings by co-sharers, most lik,ely, descendants of the holder of a whole village which ca.me to be divided .amongst the co-sharers, as a. result of devolution of interest, The parties were also agreed that the impugned Act deals with holdings, as defined in the Land-Revenue Act, or shares or portions thereof. The argument on behalf of the petitioners to get over the provisions of Art. SIA, is that the Act does not deal with any estate or any rights therein, but only with holdings or shares or portions thereof. . This argument proceeds on the assumption that holdings are not any rights in an #### estate. If the petitioners a.re right in their contention that the immunity granted by Art. SIA of the Gonstitu\ion, is a va.ilable oply ·in respeot of entire estates ###### and not portions of estates, then the argument on behalf of the respondents that ·the Act is saved by the (1) S.C.R. SUPREM.E COURT REPORTS ' 759 provisions of that Article fails _in Zimine._ If, _bn_ the _I95B_ other hand, it is held that Art. 31A applies not only _Atma_ _Ram_ to entire estates or any rights therein, but a.lso to v. shares or portions of an estate or rights therein, then _The_ _state of_ all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitio- _Punjab_ _and Others_ # ners, founded on the provisions of Arts 14, 19 and 31, .- . are thrown overboard. Therefore, it becomes neces- _Sinha_ _J._ sary to consider the amplitude of the expression " any estate or of any rights therein" in Art. 31.A.(l)(a). Rights in an estate may be either quantitati,ve or qualitative. That is to say, rights in an ~state may be held by persons having different qualities of rights in lands constituting an estate, as a result of sub-infeudation. Generally speaking and omitting all references to different kinds of land tenures prevailing in different parts of India, it may be said that at the apex of the pyramid, stands the State. Under the State, a large number of persons variously called proprietors, _zamindars, malguzars, inamdarn_ and _jagirdars,_ etc., hold parcels of land, subject to the payment ofland revenue designated as _peshkash,_ quit-rent or _malguzari,_ etc., representing the Government demands by way of land-tax out of the usufruct of the land constituting an estate, except where Gover:Qment demands had been excused in whole or in pa.rt by way of reward for service rendered to the State in the pa.st, or to be rendered in the future. An estate, thus, is an area of land which is a unit of revenue assessment, and which is separately entered in the. Land Re~enue Collector's register of revenue-paying or revenue-free estates. A single estate, unless governed by the 'Rule of Primogeniture, would, in course of time, be held by a number of persons in the same rights ll>S co-sharers in the estate. Those several co-sharers are all jointly an~ severally liable for the payment of the Government demands, if any, though, by an arrangement with the Revenue Department, they may have bad a distribution made of the total Government demands as payable in respect of aliquot portions of the e~tate. Generally speaking, in the first instance, each sharer in an estate is liable to pay his portion of the landrevenue, but if, for any reasons, the Government 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp . . _z95a_ demands cannot be realized from any defaulting share primarily liable for them, the entire estate, including _Atma Ram_ the shares of those who may not be the defaulting _The_ s:~,. _of_ proprietors, is liable to be sold or otherwise dealt with _Punjab_ _and_ 0111.,, for the realization of those demands. Thus, the unity of assessment of land revenue in respect of the entire - _Sinha_ _J._ estate remains intact. In actual practice, the holder of each specified portion or share of an estate, holds his portion for his own exclusive use and occupation. Such a sharer in an estate in Punjab is known as the land-owner of a ".holding". But such a holding still continues to be a portion or a share of the estate out of which it has been carved. Such a division of an estate is quantitative or a vertical division of an estate. But there may also be a horizontal or qualitative division of the lands in an estate, effected by the process of sub-infeudation. Continuing the illustration of the pyramid, generally speaking, the lands in an estate may in their entirety or in portions, be let out to what, in Eastern India, a.re known as tenureholders, for example, _patnidars,_ in areas covered by the Permanent Settlement. Tenure-holders were persons who took lands of an estate not necessarily for the purpose of self-cultivation, but also for settling tenants on the land, and realizing rents· from them. These _patnidars_ may have _darpatnidars_ under them, and _darpatnidars, sepatnidars,_ and in this way, the sub-infeudation went on. All these classes are included within the terms "tenure-holders"," sub-proprietors" or " under-proprietors ". The persons who are inducted on to the land for bringing it under their direct cultivation, are generally known in Eastern India as _raiyats_ with i:ights of occupancy in the land held by them. But _raiyats,_ in their turn, may have inducted tenants under them in respect of the whole or a portion of their holding. The tenant holding under a _raiyat_ is known as an _under-raiyat,_ and an under_raiyat_ may induct a tenant under himself, and he will be an under-raiyat of the second degree. Thus, in each grade of holders of land, in the process of subinfeudation described above, the holder is a tenant under his superior holder, the landlord, and also the (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' 761 landlord of the holder directly holding under him. _x95a_ Thus, in Eastern India, the interest of intermediaries _Atma Ram_ between the proprietor of an " estate " at the top and v. the actual tiller of the soil at the bottom, is kno"fn as _The State_ _of_ that of a "tenure-holder", and the interest of tenants _Punjab and Others_ other than tenure-holders, is given the generic name of a. " holding ". A holding in Ea.stern · India., thus, _Sinha],_ indicates the interest of the actual tiller of the soil_raiyat_ or under-raiyat-unlike the " holding " in ;pun. _Sinha],_ jab where, as indicated above, its signifies the interest of the holder of a share in an estate. Thus, holdings in Punjab are vertical djvisions of an estate; whereas in Eastern India, they represent a horizontal division, connoting a lesser quality of an estate in land than the interest of a tenure-holder in his tenure, or of a ###### land-owner in his estate or portion of an estate. [t is not necessarily true that there should be intermediaries in every estate or a. portion of an estate. Very often,· the holder of an estate may be holding his entire estate directly in his possession by way of _hhud-_ _kasht, zeerat, kamath_ or _neezjote,_ or it may be that the proprietor has only _raiyats_ under him without, the intermediation of tenure-holders, and the _raiyats_ may not have any _under-raiyats_ under them. The process of sub-infeudation described above, naturally, varies ###### with the size of the estate. It appears to be common ground in this case that in Punjab, an estate means the whole village, whereas in Eastern India, an estate may comprise a whole district or only a. cluster of villages, or a single village, or even a pa.rt of a. village. The larger the size of a.n estate, the greater the process of sub-infeudation and _vice versa._ In Punjab, as there was no permanent settlement of Revenue as in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and other parts of Eastern India~ the unit of revenue assessment has been the village. T,hus, a holding in Punjab means a portion of a. village either big or small. That portion may be in the direct possession of the land-owner himself, or he may have inducted tenants on a portion or the whole of his holding. The interest of the tenant in Punjab, app~ars to have been a precarious tenure, even _more precarious than that of an under _raiyat_ in Eastern India.. The 96 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _r9JI_ Punjab Legislature, realising that the interest of a tenant was much too precarious for him to invest his _Atma Ram_ available la.hour and capita.I to the fullest extent so a.s _Tl,._ ;,~1, _of_ to raise the maximum quality and quantity of money _Punjab_ _and Others_ crops or other crops, naturally, in the interest of the community a.s a. whole, and in implementation of the _Sinha_ _J._ Directive Principles of State Policy, thought of granting longer tenures, and as we have seen a.hove, the period has been progr~ssively increased until we arrive a.t the stage of the legislation now impugned, which proposes to create a large body of small land-owners who have a comparatively larger stake in the land, and consequently, have greater impetus to invest their Ia.hour and capital with a. view to raising the maximum usufruct out of the land in their possession. Keeping in view the background of the summary of land tenures in Punjab and elsewhere, we have to construe the amplitude of the crucial words "any estate or of any rights therein" in Art. 3IA (I) (a). Soon after the coming into effect of the Constitution, the different States in India embarked upon a scheme of legislatiOn for reforming the system ofland-holding, so a.s (l) to eliminate the intermediaries, that is to say, those who hold interest in land in between the State a.t the apex and the actual tillers of the soil-in other words, to abolish the class of rent-receivers, and (2) to create a large body of small land-holders who have a permanent stake in the land, and who are, therefore, interested in ma.king the best use of it. As the connotation of the term "estate" was different in different parts of the country, the expression " estate " described in cl. (2) of Art. 31A, has been so broadly defined as to cover a.II estates in the country, · and to cover all possible kinds of rights in estates, a.s shown by sub-cl. (b) of cl. (2) of Art. 31A, which is in these terms: ." (b) the expression "rights'', in relation to estate, shall include any rights vesting in a proprietor, subproprietor, under proprietor, tenure-holder _(raiyat,_ _under-raiyat)_ or other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue." The expression " rights " in relation to an estate has been given an all inclusive meaning, comprising both (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 763 what we ha.ve ca.lled, for the sa.ke of brevity, the " horizonta.l" a.nd " vertical " divisions of a.n esta.te. A _Atma_ _Ran1_ proprietor in a.n estate ma.y be the proprietor holding v. the entire interest in a. single estate, or only a. co-$ha.rer _P_ T~ab SI«~ ## o"tr 1 proprietor. The provisions a.foresa.id of Art.I 31A, _unJa_ _:.. 1 _unJa_ _:.. bearing on the construction of the expression " estate " Sida _J._ or "rights " in a.n estate, have been deliberately ma.de a.a wide a.s they could be, in order to ta.ke in all kinds of rights-quantitative a.nd qualitative-in a.n area co-extensive with an esta.te or only a portion thereof. But it has been suggested that the several interests indicated in sub-cl. (b), quoted a.hove, have been used with reference to the area. of a.n entire esta.te, but knowing as we do, tha.t a _raiyat's_ or a.n _under-raiyat's_ holding genera.Hy is not co-extensive with the a~ea. of a.n entire estate but only small portions thereof, it would, in our opinion, be unreasonable to hold that the makers of the Constitution were using the expression "estate " 9or "rights" in a.n estate, in such a. restdcted sense. Keeping in view the fa.ct that Art. 31A w~s enacted by two successive amendments-one in 1951 (First Amendment), and the second in 1955 (Fourth Amendment)-with retrospective effect, in order to save legislation effecting agrarian reforms, we ha. ve every rea.son ###### ti' hold tha.t those expressions have been used i~ their widest amplitude, consistent with the purpose ijehind those a.mendments. A piece of validating enactment purposely introduced into the Constitution with a view to saving that kind of legislation from attacks on the ground of constitutional invalidity, based on Ar~s. 14, 19 and 31, should not be construed in a. narrow 'sense. On the other ha.nd, such a. constitutional enactment should be given its fullest and widest effect,' ponsistently with the purpose behind the enactment,! . provided, however, that such a construction does ntit' ii:ivolve any violence to the language actually used. Another branch of the same argument was that if the makers of the Constitution inteaded to include within the purview of Art. 31A, not only entire estates but also portions thereof, nothing would have been easier than to sa.y so in terms, and that in the absence of any specific mention of "portions of a.n estate", 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _1958_ we should not read that article as covering " portions of an estate " also. In our opinion, there· is no sub_**Atma Ram**_ stance in t is contention, h' b ~cause t ey must h b e attri- ' ###### The ;;at• of buted full knowledge of. the legal maxim that "the _Punjab_ _and_ _othm_ greater contains the less _"--Omne M ajUB_ _continet in ae_ _minUB._ In this connection, our attention was invited _Sinha_ _J._ to the decision of a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case of _State_ _of_ _Punjab_ v. _S. Kehar_ _Singh_ ('), to the effect that a holding being a part of an estate, was not within the purview of A·rt. 31A of the Constitution. In this connection, it is necessary to state the conflict of views in that High Court itself. In the case of _Bhagirath Ram Chand_ v. _State of_ _Pun-_ _jab_ ( [0] ), the validity of the very Act impugned before us, was challenged on grounds based upon Arti cles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The learned Judges constituting the Full Bench, unanimously held that the impugned Act did not infringe th11se provisions of the Constitution, and the restrictions on the right of land-holding, imposed by the Act, were reasonable, and that the classification did not exceed the permissible limit. But they also held that the Act was saved by Art. 3IA of the Constitution, which a. pplied equally to a.n entire estate or to a. portion thereof. Besides giving other reasons, which may not bear close scrutiny, they ma.de specific reference to the doctrine that the whole includes the part. Thus, the Full Bench specifically held that Art .. 31A of the Constitution applied equally to portions of estates also. This decision of the Full Bench was followed by a. Division Bench of the same High Court, consisting of Bhandari, C. J., and Dulat, J., in the case of _Hukam Singh_ v. _The State of Punjab_ (3). That Bench was concerned with the provisions of another ActPunja.b Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954. In that case, the Division Bench, naturally, followed the decision of the Full Bench in so far as it had ruled that the 'whole' includes the part, and that where an Act provides for rights in an estate, it provides for rights in a pa.rt of an estate also. The later l!'ull (1) (1958) 6o P.L.R· 461. (2) A.I.R. 1954 Pun. 167. (3) (1955) _57_ P.L.R. 359· (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 765 ' Bench case referred to above, was decided by three _z95a_ Judges, including Bhandari, C. J ., who a.greed with the _Atma Ram_ judgment of the Court delivered by Grover, J. Per- v. haps, the better course would have been to constitute _The State of_ a. larger Bench, when it was found that a Full . Bench _Punjab and_ _Othm_ of three Judges, was inclined to take a view contrary to that of another Full Bench of equal strength. fluch a _Sinha_ _]._ course becomes necessary in view of the fact that otherwise the subordinate courts a.re placed under the embarrassment of preferring one view toa.nothet, both equally binding upon them. In our opinion, the view taken by the earlier Full Bench is the correct one. The learned Chief Justice who was a party to bQth the conflicting views on the same question, has not indicated his own reasons for changing his view. The Full Bench has accepted the force of the legal maxim that the greater contains the less, referred to a.bovie, but has not, it must be said with all respect, given any good reasons for departing from that well-esta.~lished maxim. The judgment of the Full Bench on this part of the case is based entirely upon the definition· of an estate, as contained in the Punjab Land Revenu~ Act, ###### set out a.hove. It has not stopped to consider the further question why a holding, which is a shalJe or a portion of an estate, as defined in the Punjap Act, should not partake of the characteristics of an estate. Keeping in view the background of the legislat_j.ve history and the objective· of the legislation, is ·there any rational reason for holding that the rira.kers of the Constitution thought of abolishing only intermediaries in respect of a.n area constituting one entire estate but not of a portion thereof? On the other hand, as. indicated above, they have used the expression "estate" _Sinha_ _]._ in an all-inclusive sense. They have not stopped at that; they have also added the words "or any tights therein". The expression "rights" in relation to an estate again has been used in a ver-, comprehensive sense of including not only the interests of propr~etors or sub-proprietors but also of lower grade tenants, ##### like raiyats or under-raiyats, and then they added, bf way of further emphasizing their intention, the expres- ·. sion " other intermediary ", thus, clearly showing that 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. the enumeration of intermediaries was only illustrative ##### Atman.,,. and not exhaustive. If the makers of the Constitution v. have, thus, shown their intention of saving a.II laws of _The State_ _of_ agrarian reform, dealing with the rights of intermedia_P""J•b_ _""d_ _Others_ ries, whatever their denomination may be, in our opi _Sinh•_ _J._ nion, no good reasons have been adduced in support of the view that portions or shares in an estate a.re not within the sweep of the expression "or a.ny rights therein ". A recent decision of this Court in the case of _Ram Narain Medhi_ v. _The State_ _of Bombay_ ( [1] ) dealt with the constitutionality of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956, which contains similar provisions with a view to doing a.way with intermediaries, and establishing direct relationship between the State and tillers of the soil. In that case also, the contention had been raised that the expression " estate " had reference to only alienated lands and not to unalienated lands, and this Cou.rt was invited to limit the meaning of the expression in the narrower sense. This Court repelled that contention in these words :###### "If the definition of the expression " estate " in the context of the Code is thus clear and unambiguous as comprising both the types of lands, there is no reason why a narrower construction as suggested by the petitioners should be put upon the expression "estate" ................. Even if there was any ambiguity in the expression, the wider significance should be adopted in the context of the objectives of the Act as stated above." These observations apply with full force to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in the present cases also. Another branch of ·the same argument as to why the provisions of Art. 31A do not 'tpply to the Act, is that the Act did not have the effect of either extinguishing or modifying any rights in any estate, assuming that the expression " estate " includes reference also to parts of an estate. In this connection, it is contended that the provisions of the Act impugned in these cases, did not amount to the extinguishment of (1) (1959) Supp. (1) S.C.R. 489. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 767 the interest of the land-owners in estates or portions _x95a_ thereof, and that what the Act did was to transfer some of the rights of the land-owners to their tenants. In _Atma Ram_ this connection, reliance was pla.ced on the observa- _The_ ;,~te _of_ tions of this Court in the case of _Thakur Ragkubir Punjab_ _a"d Others_ _Singh_ v. _Court of Wards, Ajmer_ (1), where Mahajan, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Court, observed that _Sinha_ _J._ the expressions " extinguishment " and " modification " used in Art. 31A of the Constitution, meant extinguishment or modification respectively of a. proprietary right in an estate, and should not include, within their ambit, a mere suspension of the right of management of an estate for a time definite or indefinite. Those observations must be strictly limited to the facts of that case, and cannot possibly be extended to the provisions of Acts wholly dissimilar to th_pse of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, XLII of 1950, which was the subject-matter of the challe~ge in the case then before this Court. This Court held, on a construction of the provisions of that Act, that they only suspended the right of management but diO not amount to any extinguishment or modification o{ any proprietary rights in an estate. The provisions df the Act then under consideration of this Court, have absolutely no resemblance to those of the Act now before us, and it is impossible to put a. similar interpretation on these provisions. In the recent decision of1 this Court (not yet reported•), this Court bad been invited to apply the observations of this Court referred to above, to the provisions of the Bombay Act. ltJ was pointed out in that case that those observatiohs of Mahajan, J. (as he then was), must be read as limited to an Act which only brings about a suspension of the right of management of an estate, and could not be extended to the provisions of an Act which either extinguishes or modifies certain rights of a proprietor in an estate or a portion thereof., In this connection, it was further argued that extinguishment of a right, does not mean su,bstitution of (1) [1953] S.C.R. 1049, _1055,_ 1056. - Since reported as _Sri_ _Rant Narain Med/Ii_ v. _The Stale_ _of_ _Bombay,_ [1959] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 489. 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _•95_ _[8 ]_ another person in that right, but total annihilation of _Atma Ram_ that right. In our opinion, it is not necessary to discuss v. this rather metaphysical argument, because, in our _The_ _state_ _of_ opinion, it is enough for the purpose of this case to _Punjab and Others_ hold that the provisions of the Act, amount to modifi cation of the landowner's rights in the lands compris_**Sinha**_ _**j.**_ ed in his "estate " or " holding ". The Act modifies the land-owner's substantive rights, particularly, in three respects, as indicated above, namely, (1) it modifies his right of settling his lands on any terms and to any one he chooses ; (2) it modifies, if it does not altogether extinguish, his right to cultivate the " surplus area " as understood under the Act ; and (3) it modifies his right of transfer in so far as it obliges him to sell lands not at his own price but at a price fixed under the statute, and not to any one but to specified persons, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, set out above. Thus, there cannot be the least doubt that the provisions of the Act, very substantially modify the land-owner's rights to hold and dispose of ###### his property in any estate or a portion thereof. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of Art. 31A save the impugned Act from any attack based on the pro-. visions of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. That being so, it is not necessary to consider the specific provisions of the Act, which, it was contended, were unreasonable restrictions on the land-owner's rights to enjoy his property, or whether he had been unduly discriminated against, or whether the compensation, if any, provided for under the Act, was illusory or, at any rate, inadequate. Those grounds of attack are not available to the petitioners. In the result, all these petitions are dismissed with costs, the State of Punjab and its officers being entitled to only one set of hearing fees in all the petitions. _Petitions dismissed._