Holding

The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, being a law of agrarian reform protected by Article 31‑A, prevails over the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, despite the apparent repugnancy.

Summary

The case concerned a dispute between Gram Panchayats and the Central Government over the vesting of Shamlat‑deh (village common) lands after the 1947 partition. The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 vested such lands in the village panchayats, while the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 vested the same lands in a Custodian as evacuee property. The High Court held the two statutes repugnant and gave precedence to the Central Act. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional provisions on repugnancy (Art. 254), the limited scope of the President’s assent under Art. 31‑A, and the competence of the State Legislature to enact agrarian‑reform laws even where the property was vested in the Centre. It concluded that the Punjab Act, being a law of agrarian reform protected by Art. 31‑A, prevails over the Central Act, and the High Court’s decision was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 and the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 are repugnant under Article 254 of the Constitution.
Whether the President’s assent to the Punjab Act, obtained for the purpose of Article 31‑A, can be used to give the State law precedence over the Central law.
Whether a State Legislature can legislate on agrarian reform concerning property that has been vested in the Central Government or a Custodian.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Evacuee propertyShamlat‑deh landsAgrarian reformArticle 254President's assentRepugnancyState vs Centre legislationPanchayatCustodianDisplaced Persons ActConstitutional law

Judgment

28

A GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VIIJ.AGE, JAMALPUR
v.
MALWINDER SINGll & ORS.

JULY 9, 1985

B [Y.v. CHANDRACHUD, CJ,, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, v.o. TULZAPURKAR,
o. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]

Constitution of India 1950, Articles 31, 31A, 254 Seventh
Schedule List II Entry No. 18 and List III Entry No. 41.

Assent of President to law sought for specific purpose -
c Efficacy of assent - Limited to that purpose and cannot be exten-
ded beyond it.

Law made by Parliament - Law made by State Legislature -
Inconsistency - Which law to prevail. •

State Legislature whether competent to make law relating to
agrarian reform in respect of property which by process of law
vested in Central Government or Custodian.

Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950, Section 8 (2) &
Punjab Village Co111110n Lands (Regulation) Act 1953. Section 3
Central Act and State Act - Conflict - Whether exists - Evacuee
E property - Vesting of - Shamlat-deh lands nature of - Explained.

Prior to the partition of India, the Shamlat-deh lands in
Punjab were owned by the properietors of the other lands in the
village, "Hasab Rasad Khewat" in the same proportion in which
they owned the other lands. A person who did not own any other
F land in the village could therefore have no proprietary right or
interest in Shamlat-deh lands. There were some villages in
Punjab which were mostly inhabited by Muslima, with the result
that al.most all the lands in those villages were owned by Muslim
,:-roprietors who, as a result of their proprietary interest in
those lands had a proportionate undivided share in the Shamlat-
G deb lands· They had only an 'undivided' share in the Shamlat-deh
lands because such lands were not liable to be partitioned they
could not be alienated and they were intended to be used and were
in fact used, without exception, as undivided property of the
proprietors of the other lands. Some of the villages in Punjab
and many in Haryana were inhabited partly by Muslims and partly
H by non-Muslima.
- GRAM PANC!IAYAT v, MAI.WINDER SINGH 29

After the partition as a result of the unprecedented move- A
ment of population, most of the Muslims proprietors migrated to
Pakistan whereas the non-Muslims continued to live in their
villages. Multidimensional interlinked problems of administration
of the properties of those who hsd left the country and rehabili-
tation of those that hsd poured into the country arose.
B
The question as to the management and the preservation of
the property left by Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the
East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of. Property) Act, 14 of
1947. Section 4 · thereof provided that all interests in the
property whether movable or immovable of the evacuees vested in
the Custodian appointed by the State Government. This Act of the c
State Legislature, was repealed and replaced by an Act passed by
the Parliament, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.
That Act came into force on APril 17, 1950. As a result of this
provision the interest of all evacuees which had vested in the
Custodian under the Punjab· Act 14 of 1947, came to be vested in
the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950. In the D
villages which were wholly inhabited by Muslims and from which
almost the entire population migrated to Pakistan, all the
Sham.lat-deb lands together with the other proprietary lands were
declared evacuee property and came to be vested in the Custodian.
In the villages which were inhabited both by Muslims and non-
Muslims, the proprietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees vested
in the Custodian and along with that the interest of the proprie- E
tors in the Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was also vested in the
Custodian.

In the writ petitions filed in the High Court the
controversy was between the right of the Gram Panchayats to the
Sham.lat-deb lands situated in those villages which fell within . F
their jurisdiction and, on the other hsnd, the right of Rehabili-
tation Department of the Central Govemment to allot lands of
thst description, to the extent of the · evacuee interest
therein, to persons who migrated from Pakistan to India after the
partition of the Country.
G
· The contention of the Central Govemment and, of persons to
whom its Rehabilitation Department has·allotted the Shamlat-deh
lands on their migration to India, is thst the interest in such
lands, of the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan is evacuee
property which the Central Govemment has the right to allot

f under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act of 1954. The contention of the Govemment of
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.
-
A Punjab and ·of the Gram Panchayats in Punjab and Haryana is that,
by reason of the provisions of the .Punjab Village Common Lands
{Regulation) Act of 1953, the interest of all persons whether
Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the Shamlat-deh lands stood
extinguished and those lands were placed by the said Act under
the control and power of the respective Gram Panchayats.
B
The High Court held that there was repugnancy between the
provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1950
and those of the Punjab Village Common Lands ·(Regulation) Act of
1953.

Allowing the appeal to this Court,
c
BEU>: (By the Court) 1. There is a direct conflict between
section 8(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950,
and Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1953 on the question of vesting of evacuee property. [38 A]

2•.The Punjab Act was reserved for the assent of the Presi-
D dent though for the specific and limited purpose of Articles 31
and 31-A of the Constitution. That assent can not avail the State
Government for the purpose of according precedence to the law
made by the Legislature namely the Punjab Act of 1953 over the
law made by the Parliament namely the Central Act of 1950 even
within the jurisdiction of the State. [41 F,42 F]
E
llabnan v. Sai ILR 9 Lahore 501 & Banjil: Singh v. State of
Punjab [1965] l SCR 82 referred to.
'
Rattingan 's Digest of Customaty Law in the Punjab - Chapter
X referred to.
F
{Per CbaDdraclwd c.J., s. Muttaza FazaJ. Ali, v.n. Tulzapur-
kar 8Dd A. Varadarajan, JJ.) ·
l. (i) A mere reading of tile two sections, Section 3 of the
Punjab Act of 1953 and section 8(2) of ·the Central Act of 1950
G would show that there is a direct conflict between the two provi-
sions. Under s.4 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of
Property) Act 14 of 1947 which came into force on December 13,
1947 all interest in the property, movable or immovable, of the

1
evacuees vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Govern-
ment. ·The Central Act of 1950 repealed by the East Punjab Act 14
H of 1947. Under s. 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 the evacuee
GRAM PANCHAYAT V• MALWINDER SINGH 31

property which was vested in the Custodian appointed by the State
A
Government under the repealed Act, was to be deemed to be evacuee
property declared as such under the Central Act and_became vested
in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act. [38 A-BJ

(ii) As a result of s. 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 the
Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 was divested of
B
the Shamlat--deh lands, to the extent of the interest therein of
the Muslim propri.etors who had migrated to Pakistan. [38 DJ

(iii) If the Punjab Legislature had not passed the Act of
1953, the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under the
Central Act of 1950 could have dealt with the interest of the
Muslim evacuees in the Shamlat--deh lands as evacuee property,
c
though consistently with the limitations which operated upon
that interest. He forfeited that power because, the Punjab Act of
1953 extinguished the interest of all persons, whether Hindus,
Sikhs or Muslims, in the :shamlat--deh lands and vested all
rights, title and interest in such lands in the respective
D
panchayats having jurisdiction over the village. [38 FJ

z. Article 254 of the Constitution deals with situations where
th~re is inconsistency between the laws made by the Parliament
and the laws made by the Legislature of a State. Since the law
made j>y the Legislature of the State of Punjab namely, s. 3 of
the Punjab Act of 1953 is repugnant to the law made by the
E
Parliament which the Parliament was competent to enact namely s.
8(2) of the Central Act of 1950, the law made by the Parliament
must prevail and the law made by the Punjab Legislature has _to be
held to be void to the extent of the repugnancy. The repugnancy
is to the extent that whereas under the Central ~t the interest
of the evacuees in all properties including the Shamlat--deh lands
F
vests in the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under
that Act, the Shamlat--deh lands vest in the Panchayats under the
provisions of the State Act. [39 B-FJ

3. The Punjab Act of 1953 was reserved for consideration of
the President and received his assent on Decempber 26, 1953.
Prima facie by reason of the assent of the President, the Punjab
Act would prevail in the State of Punjab over the Act of the
Parliament and the Panchayats would be at· liberty ~o deal with
the Shamlat--deh lands according to the relevant Rules or Bye-laws
governing the matter, including the evacuee interest therein.
The Punjab Act was reserved for Che assent of the President
!I
though for the specific and limited purpose of Articles 31 and
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. ~

A 31-A of the Constitution. Since the Punjab Act of 1953 extingui-
shed all private interest in Shamlat-deh lands and vested those
lands in the Village Panchayats and since the Act was a measure
of agrarian reforms it wae reserved for tbe considertion of the
President. [41 E-F,H-42 A]

B In ·the instant case, the assent of the President is sought
t<> the law for a specific purpose, the efficacy of the assent
would be limited to that purpose and cannot be extended beyotld
it. Not only was the President not appraised in the instant case
that hie asse'lt was sought because of the repugnancy between the
State Act and the pre-eidsting Central Act on the vesting of
evacuee properties but his assent was sought for a different
C specifi~ purpose all together. [42 ll-E)

4. Though the law made by the Parliament prevaila over the law·
made by the State Legislature the interest of the e~uees in the
Shamlat-deh lands cannot be dealt with effectively by the
Custodian under the Central Act because of the peculiar incidents
characteristics of such lands. The unfortunate result is that
D the vesting in the Custodian of the evacuee interest in the
Shamlat-deh lands is more or less an empty formality. It does
not help the Cwltodian to implement the provisions of the Central
law but it excludes the benign operation of the State Law. {42
H-43 A] .

E 5. Parliament has passed a law which falls under entry No. 41
of the Concurrent List, while the State Legislature has passed a
law which falls under Entry No. 18 of the State List. The law
passed by the State Legislature being s measure of agrarian
reform is conductive to the welfare of the comnumity and there is
no reason why that law should not have effect in its full ampli- ·
F tude. By this process, the village panchayats will be able to
meet the needs of the village cOlllllJDity and secure its welfare.
( 43 F] .

6. The Punjab Act of 1953 would prevail in the State of Punjab
over the Central Act of 1950 even in ~o far as Shamlat-deh lands
G are concerned. [43 G]

7. Under the Central Act of 1950, the Custodian is entitled to
preserve and manage the interest of the evacuees in all evac-
uee properties, which would include the Shamlat-deh lands• Under
the Punjab Act of 1953, the Shamlat-deh lands vest in the Pancha-
H yat which carries the right of preservation and management of
such lands. By reason of the State Act, the Custodian appointed
under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his Control over the
GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAUIINDER SINGH 33

evacuee interest in the S'1amlat-deh lands. The impact of this A
divestment, is that the Rehabilitation Department of the Central
Government. loses its power to allot such lands, to the extent of
the evacuee interest therein, to displsced persons in order to
satisfy their claims under the Displsced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitstion) Act, 1954. Such properties therefore, csnnot
from part of the Compensstion pool. Nor csn these properties, to B
j
the extent of the surplus remaining after allotment to displaced
persons, be transferred by the Central Government to the
State Government, under the 'Package Deal' of 1961. What vests in
the Custodian is the interest of the evacuee as such together
with all the interests to which it is subject. That interest
cannot be freed from its incidents merely because it comes· to be c
vested in the Custodian u evacuee property. The Custodian gets
what the evacuee had, quantitatively and qualitatively. If the
evacuees interest in Shsmlat was incapable of alienation and if
Shamlat-deh lsnda were regarded as reserved for the cOD1110n use;
the Custodian would have no right to allot them for the separate
or exclusive use of diaplaced persona who migrated to India after D
the partition of the Country. If no allotment could be made under
the Displsced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954
there would be no question of any aurplus and, consequently, no
occasion to transfer 'surplus' land to the State Government.
The peculiar incidents of co-sharer'• interest in the Shamlat-deh
lands, and the severe limitations operating upon that interest
renders the provisions .of the Central Act of 1950, virtually E
innocuous and inoperative. The Custodian under that Act would
have the hW.k of the title to the evacuees' interest in the
Shsmlat-deh lands as a result of the vesting of that interest in
him, but beyond such vesting he would be powerless, in practice,
to distribute those lands to the displaced persons. [39 G-40 F]
F
8. The hall'"1118.rk of the Shamlst-deh lands is their indivisi-
bility and inalienability. (40 ~]

(Per Qdnnappa lleddy, J. coacurring)

1. The question in the pi:,esent case is not whether there was G
any conflict between the Central and Stste Legislations but
whether the legislature of the State could make a lsw relating to
agrarian reform in respect of property which included property
which by a process of law has become vested in the Central
Government or the Custodian. [49 H-50 BJ
H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A 2. When the Par limnent and the State Legislature, each of them
legislate in their own field with respect to different subjects-
in t~.ia case Evacuee Property and the Shamlat-deb, no reason is
fourul to conclude that there was necessarily a conflict between
the two legislations. (49 H) ·

B 3. There is no reason to why the State Legislature abould be
considered incompetent to make a law relating to agrarian reform.
The !.'unjab Act of 1953 is iwleed a law relating to agrarian
reforms even though it affects lawls veated in the Central
Goveroment or the Cuatodian. (50 B]

4. The effect of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act
c was not to take away the Character of Sbsmlat-deh as Shamilat-deb
but only to vest in the Custodian such interest as the evacuee
possessed in the Shamilat-deb. The interest which the erstwhile
evacuees possessed was neither enlarged nor abridged. The land
continued to be Shamilat-deh and it could be the subject of
competent State Legislation as Shamilat-deb· If for the purpose
of agrarian reform the legislature of the State enacted a law as
D it was competent to do and consent was accorded by the President
uwler Article 31-A of the Constitution, there is no justification
for the argument that there was any conflict . between the Punjab
Act and the Central Act. [49 D-E]

5. It would be wholly wrong to suggest that the zamindari f
E becoming vested in the Custodian on account of the Muslim zamin-
dari (intermediary) llligrating to Pakistan, raiyati land in the
village changed its character and the occupancy ·rights of the
raiyats ceased in the lawls, merely because ·the Zamindar llligrated
to Pakistan and the Zamindari became vested in the Custodian.
Similarly l&nds in an erstwhile Zamindari set apart for pasture,
F as grazing grounds etc. did not lose their character as such on
the llligration of the Zamindar to Pakistan. (49 F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 140l(N) of
1973.

G From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.1973 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 2657 of 1970.

S.L.Aneja and K.L.Taneja for Appellant No. 1.
Hardev Singh and R.S.Sodhi for· Appellant No. 2.

H
GRAM PANCHAYAT,v. MAI.w!NDER SINGH [CHANDRACHUD, CJ.] 35

A
N.C.Talukdar, c.v. Subba Rao, R.N. Poddar and Miss A.
Subhashini for the Respondent No. 2.
S .Ram Singh Bindra and Harbans Singh for the Respondent ~
No. 1. .

The following Judgments were delivered
B
,;
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. Eight writ petitions were filed in the
High Court of Punjab and· Haryana, involving a conmon question of
law as to the alleged repugnancy between the Administration of
Evacuee Property Act of 1950 and, the Punjab Village CollllllOn Lands
(Regulation) Act of 1953 (referred to herein as 'the Punjab Act
of 1953'). Four, out of the eight writ petitions, relate to c
lands situated in the State of Haryana, while the remaining four
relate to lands situated in the Sta.te of Punjab.

The controversy in the writ petitions is between the right
of the Gram Panchayats to the Shainlat-deh lands situated in those
villages which fall within their jurisdiction and, on the other D
hand, the right of the Rehabilitation Department of the Central
Government to allot lands of that description, to the extent of
the evacuee interest therein, to persons who migrated from Paki-
stan to India after the partition of the country. The contention
of the Central Government and, of persons to whom its Rehabilita-
tion Department has allotted the Shamlat-deh lands on their
migration to India, is that the interest, in such lands, of the E
Muslims who migrated to Pakistan is evacuee property which the
Central Govermnent has the right to allot under the provisions of
the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of
1954. On the other hand, the contention of the Govermnent of
Punjab and of the Gram Panchayats in Punjab and Haryana is that,
by reason of the provisions of the Punjab Act vf 1953, the F
interest of all persons, whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the
Shainlat-deh lands stood extinguished and those lands were placed
by the said Act wider the control and power of the respect!ve
Gram Panchayat.

Prior to the par ti ti on of India on August 15, 1947 the G
Shainlat-deh lands in Punjab were owned by the proprietors of the
other lands in the Village, "Hasab Ra.sad Khewat", that is to say,
in the same proportion in which they owned the other lands.
Therefore, a person who did not own any other land in the village
could have no proprietary right or interest in the Shamlat-deh
lands, But, though the interest of the proprietors of the other H
lands, in Shainlat-deh lands, was incidental to their proprietary
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c...

A interest in those other lands, such interest in the Shamilat -
not a mere appendage to their interest in the other lands . Our
learned Brother Chinnsppa Reddy, has referred in his jlJli&mant to
a leading decision of the Lahore High Court, I.;� v. s.t ILll. 9
Lahore 501 in which it was held that ,if a proprietor alienated
his land, the alienee would not acquire llllY interest in the
ll Shamilat by mere virtue of the alienation. That was but cooee
quential to the well -established legal position in Punjab that
the Shamlat-deh lands were intended for the COlllDOn use of all
sharers.

There were some villages in Punjab which were mostly
inhabited by Muslims, with the result that almost all the lands
c in those villages were owned by Muslim proprietors who, as a
r
result of their proprietary interest in those lands, had a
proportionate undivided share in the Shamlat-deh lands. They bad
only an 'undivided' share in the Shamlat-deh lands because such
lands were not liable to be partitioned, they could not be
alienated and, they were intended to be used and were in fact
used, without exception, as undivided property of the proprietors
lJ of the other lands . Indeed, our learned Brother has cited a
passage from Rattigan's 'Digest of the Customary Law in the
Punjab', which shows that Shamlat-deh lands were treated as
reserved for common village purposes. Some of the villages in
...
Punjab and many in Haryana, were inhabited partly by Muslims and
partly �y non-Muslims. Most of the Muslim proprietors migrated
to Pak.is ::an whereas, the non-Muslims continued to live in their
villages.

The question as to the management and preservation of the
property left by Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the F.ast
Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 14 of 1947.
F That was an Act of the Punjab Legislature, section 4 of which
provided that all interests in the property whether movable or
immovable, of the evacuees vested in the Custodian appointed by
the State Government. That Act, like similar Acts passed by the
other State Legislatures, was repealed and replaced by an Act
passed by the Parliament, viz; the Administration of Evacuee
G Property Act, 1950, to which we will refer as the 'Central Act of
1950'. That Act came into force on April 17, 1950. Section 8(2)
thereof provided that, if any property in the State had vested
immediately before the commencement of the Act as evacuee pro
perty in any Custodian .under any law repealed by the Act, that
property shall, on the commencement of the Act, be deemed to be
H evacuee property and shall vest in the Custodian appointed for
GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAI.WINDER SINGH (CHANDRACHUD,CJ.] 37

the State . under the Ac,t. As a result of this provision, the A
interest of all evacuees which had vested in the Custodian under
the Punjab Act 14 of 1947, came to be vested in the Custodian
appointed under the Central Act of 1950. In the villages which
I were wholly inhabited by Muslims and fr0m which almost the entire
population migrated to Pakistan, · all the Shamlat-deh lands to-
t
.
gether with the other proprietary lands were declared evacuee
property and came to be vested in the Custodian. In the villages
I!

t which were inhabited both by Muslims and non-Muslims, the pro-
prietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees vested in the Custodian
and, along with that, the interest of the proprietors in the
Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was, also vested in the Custodian.

The point which arisea for our consideration and which has
c
been answered i~ the affirmative by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana is whether, there is any repugnaucy between the provi-
sions of the Central Act of 1950 and those of the Punjab Act of
1953. (The latter Act has been referred to by the High Court as
the Act of 1954 beacuse, though passed in 1953, it was numbered D
as Act l of 1954). Section 3 of the Punji;b Act, which is said to
be the focal point of the repugnancy, reads thus, in so far as
relevent

"3. Vesting of rigbta in l'allcbayats ad in DOll"'pEO-
prietora:
E
Nocwithstandill8 1\11Ythill8. to the contrary contained in
any other law for the time beill8 in force•••••••••all
rights, title and interest Whatsoever in the land -

(a) which is included in Shamlat-deh of any village,
shall, on the apppointed date, vest in a Panchayat F
ha;;ing jurisdiction over the village".

Section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 reads thus

"Where, illmediatly r.efore the coamencement of this
Act, any property in a State had vested as evacuee G
property in any person exercising the powers of Custo-
dian under any law repealed hereby, the property
shall,. on the c0111De11cement of this Act, be deemed
to be evacuee property declared as such within the
meaning of this Act, and shall be. deemed to have
vested in the Custodian appointed or deemed to have H
been appointed for the State under this Act and shall
continue to so vest.··
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 S.C.R.

A A mere reading of the two sections, namely, section 3 of the
Punjab Act of 1953 and section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950,
would show that there is a direct conflict between the two provi-
sions. Under section 4 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administra-
tion of Property) Act 14 of 1947, which came into force on
December 13, 1947 all interest in the property, movable or
B immovable, of the evacuees vested in the Custodian appointed' by
the State Government. The Central Act of 1950 repealed the East
Punjab Act 14 of 1947. Under section 8 (2) of the Central Act of
1950, the evacuee property which was vested in the Custodian

c
appointed by the State Government under the repealed Act, was .to
be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such under the
Central Act and became vested in the Custodian appointed under
the Central Act. Thereafter came the Punjab Act of 1953 under
which, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
other law for the time being in force", all rights, title and
interest whatsoever in the Shamlat-deh lands of any village, came
-\
to be vested in the Panchayat having jurisdiction over the
particular village. It is quite clear that as a result of this
provision, the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950
D was divested of the Shamlat-deh lands, to the extent of the
interest therein of the Muslim proprietors who had migrated to
Pakistan. If the Punjab Legislature had not passed the Act of
1953, the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under the
Central Act of. 1950 could have dealt with the interest of the
Muslim evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands as evacuee property,
E though consistently with the limitations which operated upon that
interest. He forfeited that power because, the Punjab Act of 1953
extinguished the interests of all persons, whether Hindus, Sikhs
or Muslims, in the Shamlat-deh lands and vested all rights, title
and interest in such lands in the respective Panchayats having
jurisdiction over the village. It may be mentioned that the
F Punjab Act of 19)3 was repealed and replaced by an Act of 1961,
bearing a similar title. That Act defines the Shamlat-deh lands
in a slightly different manner but, that difference is inconse-
quential for resolving the controversy which arise before us.

Having seen that there is a direct conflict between section
G 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 and section 3 of the Punjab Act
of 1953 on the question of vesting of evacuee property, the ques-
tion which arises is as to which of these two Acts w6uld prevail.
That question has to be answered in the light of the provisions
of the Constitution. Entry No. 41 in List Ill (Concurrent List)
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, reads thus :
H
GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAL.WINDER SINGll [CHANDRACHUD,CJ.j 39

"Custody, management and disposal of property A
(including agricultural land) declared by law to be
evacuee property''.

·since the interest of the evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands was
deemed to be declared as evacuee property, both the State Legis-
lature and the Central Legislature had the power to deal with B
that interest by virtue of Entry No. 41. Article 254 of the
Constitution deals with situations where there is inconsistency
bet:Ween the laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by the
Legislature of a State. Clause (1) of that Article, to the
extent that it is relevant, reads thus :
c
"(1) If any provision of a law made by the legislature
of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made

t
by Parliament which parliament is competentto enact,
•••••• , then, subject to the provisions of clause (2),
the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or
after the law made by the Legislature of such State, D
•••• shall prevail and the Law made by the Legislature
of the State shall,to the extent of the repugnancy, be
void."

Since the law made by the Legislature of the State of Punjab,
namely, section 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953, is repugnsnt to the
law made by the Parliament which the Parliament was competent to E
enact, namely, section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950, the law
llit.de by the Parliament must prevail and the law made by the
Punjab Legislature has to be held to be void to the extent of the
repugnsncy. The repugnsncy is to the extent that whereas, under
the central Act, the interest of the evacuees in all proper-
tiea, including the Shamlat-deh lands, vest in the Custodian F
appointed or deemed to be appointed under that Act, the Shamlat-
deh lands vest in the Panchayats under the provisions of the
State Act.

The consequences of this repugnsncy are self-evident. Under
the Central Act of 1950, the Custodian is entitled to preserve G
and manage the interests of evacuees in all evacuee properties,
which would include the Shamlat-deh lands. Under the Punjab
Act of 1953, the Shamlat-deh lands vest in the Panchayats, which
carries with it the right of preservation and management of such
lands. In brief, by reason of the State Act, the Custodian
appointed under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his H
control over the evacuee interest in the Shamlat-deh lands. The
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

most significant impact of this divestment, though somewhat of an
A
academic nature, is that the Rehabilitation Department of the
Central Government loses its power to allot such lands, to the
extent of the evacuee interest therein, to displaced persons in
order to satisfy their clal.lµs under the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Such properties,
therefore, cannot form part of the Compensation pool. Nor can
B
these properties, to the extent of the surplus remaining after
allotment to displaced persons, be transferred by the Central
Government: to the State Government under the 'Package Deal' of
1961. We said that the impact of repugnancy is somewhat of an
cicademic ~ture because, what vests in the Custodian is the
interest of the evacuee such as it is, that is to say, together
with all the incidents to which the evacuee interest was subject.
c That interest cannot be freed from its incidents merely because
it comes to be vested in the Custodian as evacuee property. The

1
Custodian gets what the evacuee had, quantitatively and qualita-
tively. If the evacuee's interest in Shamlat was incapable of
alienation and if Shamlat- deh lands were regarded as reserved
for the coannon use of the villagers, the Custodian would have no
right to allot them for the separate or exclusive use of
D
displaced' persons who migrated to India after the partition of
the country. If no allotment could be made by the Custodian under
the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of
1954, there would be no question of any surplus, land, conse-
quently, no occasion to transfer 'surplus' land to the State
Government under the Packag"- Deal of 1961. The peculiar incidents
of the co--<harers' interest in the Shamlat-deh lands and the
severe limitations operating upon that interest render the
provisions,of the Central Act of 1950 virtually innocuous and
inoperative. The Custodian, under that Act, would have the husk
of the title to the evacuees' interest in the Shamlat-deh lands
as a result of the vesting of that interest in him but, beyond
F
such vesting, he would be powerless, in practice, to distribute
those lands to the displaced persons. The hall-mark of the
Shamlat-deh lands is their indivisibility and inalienability,
(Se_e Rattigan 's 'Digest', to which our learned Brother, Chinnappa
Reddy, has made a copious reference].
G
If Article 254(1) stood by itself, there would have been no
difficulty in holding that, for whatever it is worth, the Central
Act of 1950 prevails over the Punjab Act of 1953 since, the two
Acts which are relatable to Entry No. 41 of the Concurrent List,
are repugnant to each other in the ma.tter of vesting of the
evacuee interest in Shamlat-deh lands. But, there is another
H
GRAM PANCJIAYAT v. MALWINDER SINGH [CHANDRACHUD ,CJ· ) 41

facet of this question without considering whicn, the question of A
competill8 priorities between the two Acts cannot be determined.
It shall have been noticed that the provision contained in clause
(l) of Article 254 is "subject to the provisions of clause(2)" of
that Article. Clause (2) reads thus :

"(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State B
with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to
the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or
an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the
law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, i f
it has been reserved for the consideration of the c
President and has received his assent, ·prevail in that
State :

Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent
Parliament from enacting at any time any law with
respect to the same matter including a law adding to, D
amending, varying or repealill8 the law so made by the
Legislature of the State."

The Punjab Act of 1953 was reserved for consideration of the
President and received his assent on December 26, 1953. Prima
facie, by reaaon of the assent of the President, the Punjab Act
would prevail in the State of Punjab over the 1'.J::t of the Parlia- E
ment and the Panchayats would be at liberty tc deal with the
Shamlst-deh lands according to the relevant Rules or Bye-laws
governing the matter, including the evacuee interest therein.
llut, there is a complication of some nicety arising out of the
fact that the Punjab Act was reserved for the assent of the
President, though for the specific and limited purpose of F
Articles 31 and 31-A of the Constitution. Article 31, which was
deleted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978
provided for compulsory acquisition of property. Clause (3) of
that Article provided that, no law referred to in .clause (2),
made by the Legislature of a State shall have effect unless such
law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, G.
has received his assent. Article 31-A confers protection upon
laws falling within clauses (a) to (e) of that Article; provided
that such laws, if made by a·State Legislature, have received the
assent of the President. Clause (a) of Article 31-A comprehends
laws of agrarian reform, Since the Punjab Act of 1953 extinguish-
ed all private interests in Shamlst-deh lands and vested those H
lands in the Village Panchayats and since, the Act was a measure
of agrarian ~eform it was reserved for the consideration of the
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A President. The judgment of the High Court shows that the hearing
of the writ petitions was adjourned to enable the State Govern-
ment to place material before the Court showing the purpose for
which the Punjab Act of 1953 was forwarded to the President
for his assent. The record shows, and it was not disputed either
before us br in t~e High Court, that the Act was not reserved for
B the assent of the President on the ground that it was repugnant
to an earlier Act passed by the Parliament, namely, the Central
Act of 1950. In these circumstances we agree with the High Court
that· the Punjab Act of 1953 cannot be said to have been reserved
for the assent of the President within the meaning of clause (2)
of Article 254 of the Constitution insofar as its repugnancy
with the Central Act of 1950 is concerned. The assent of the
c President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution is not a
matter of idle formality. The President has, at least, to be
apprised of the reason why his assent is sought if, there is any
special reason for doing so. If the assent is sought and given
in general terms so as to be effective for all purposes,
different considerations may legitimately arise. But if, as in
the instant case, the assent of the President is sought to the
D Law for a specific purpose, the efficacy of the assent would be
limited to that purpose and canno< be extended beyond it. Not
only was the President not apprised in the instant case that his
assent was sought because of the repugnancy between the State Act
and the pre-existing Central Act on the vesting of evacuee
properties but, his assent was sought for a different, specific
E purpose altogether. Therefore, that assent cannot avail the
State Government for the purpose of according precedence to the
law made by the State Legislature, namely, the Punjab Act of
1953, over the law made by the Parliament, even within the
jurisdiction of the State.

F This situation creates a conundrum. The Central Act of 1950
prevails over t.he Punjab Act of 1953 by. virtue of Article 254 (1)
of the Constitution read with Entry No. 41 of the Concurrent
List; and, Article 254(2) cannot afford assistance to reverse
that position since the President's assent, which was obtained
for a specific purpose, cannot be utilised for according priority
G to the Punjab Act. Though the law made by the Parliament pre-
vails over the law made by the State Legislature, the interest of
the evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands cannot be dealt with
effectively by the Custodian under the Central Act, because of
the peculiar incidents and characteristics of such lands. The
unfortunate result is that the vesting in the Custodian of the
H
GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAI.wINDER SINGH [CHANDRACHUD,CJ.] 43

A
evacuee interest in the Sham.lat-deb lands is, more or less., an
empty formality. It does not help the Custodian to implement the
provisions of the Central law but, it excludes the benign
operation of the State law.

The line of reasoning of our learned Brother, Chinnappa
B
Reddy, affords a satisfactory solution to this constitutional
impasse, which we adopt without reservation of any kind. The
pith and substance of the P1.U1jab Act of 1953 is 'Land' which
falls under Entry No. 18 of List II (State List) of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. That Entry reads thus

"Entry .No. 18 ..: Land, that is to say, rignts in or
c
over land, land tenures including the relation of
landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents ;
transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land
improvement and agricultural loans; colonisation."
D
Our learned Brother has extracted a passage from a decision of a
.Constitution Bench of this Court in Banjit Singh v. State of
Punjab (1965] 1 s.c.R. 1982, which took the view that since,
the Punjab Act of 1953 is a measure of agrarian reform it
would receive the protection of Article 31-A. It may be recalled
that the Act had received the assent of the President as required
by the first proviso to that Article. The pawer of the State
E
Legislature to pass law on matters enumerated in the State List
is exclusive by reason of the provision contained in Article
246(3). In a nutshell, the position is that the Parliament has
passed a law on a matter which falls under Entry No. 41 of the
Concurr-ent List, while the State Legislature has passed a law
which falls under Entry No. 18 of the State List. The law passed
F
by the State Legislature being a measure of agrarian reform, is
conducive to the welfare of the community and there is no reason
why that law should not have effect in its full amplitude. By
this process, the village panchayats will be able to meet the
needs of the village community and·secure its welfare. According-
ly, the Punjab Act of 1953 would prevail in the State of Punjab
G
over the Central Act of 1950, even in so far as Shamlat-deh lands
are concerned.

In the result, the judgment of the High Court is set aside
and this appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
H
Civil Appeal Nos. 2044 of 1974 and 1963-65- of 1975 which
were heard along with this appeal and which involve the same
points are also allowed, with no order as to costs.
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

Special Leave is granted in Special Leave Petition No. 7984
A
of 1981. The appeal is allowed, with no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2125 of 1978, 470 of 1969, 1832 of 1969,
1088 of 1969, 1726 of 1974 and 1728 of 1974 were delinked from
the above group of matters as they involve questions relating to
the 'package deal' of 1961. Those matters may be listed for
ll
hearing at an early date.

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. I agree with the conclusion of my lord
the Chief Justice and I reiterate the proposition that the
assent accOrded by the President for the express purpose of
Article 31-A is not capable of automatic transformation into
assent for the purpose of Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
c
In my view the question that really requires determination
is not one of repugnancy between the Punjab Act and the Central
Act but, what is the product of the two Acts, each operating in
its own assigned field? What is the effect of the Punjab Act of
1953 on the Central Act of 1950? ls it a case of Peter robbing
Paul?
D

In Rattigan' s 'Digest of Customary Law in the Punjab', in
the introduction to Chapter X (Village Coonnon Land) it is noted
that within the territorial limits of every village some portion
of the uncultivated waste lands are reserved 'for purposes of
coonnon pasture, for assemblies of people, for the tethering of
ll
the village cattle, and the possible extension of the village
dwellings' arid that 'Lands so reserved are jealously guarded as
the Coonnon property of the original body of settlers who founded
the village or their descendants, and occasionally also those who
assisted the settlers in clearing the waste and bringing it under
cultivation are recognized as having a share in these reserved
F
plots' • It was further noticed "Even in villages which have
adopted.separate ownership as to the cultivated area, some such
plots are usually reserved as village connnon, and in pattidar
villages, it is not unusual to find certain portions of the waste
reserved for the common use of the proprietors of each patti, and
other portions for coonnon village purposes. The former is desig- •
G
nated as Shamilat-patti and the latter Shamlat-deh", It was said
"As a general rule, only proprietors of the village (malikan-deh)
as distinguished from proprietors of their own holdings (malikan
makbuza khud) are entitled to share in the Shamlat-deh",

Ii
GRAM PANCllAYA:r v. MALW!NDEil SINGH [CHINNAPPA BED!>Y, J.] 45

While it appears to have been laid down that the right to A
share in the Village Coulllon Land is an incident attaching to the
ownership of agricultural land in the village, and that ordi11&ri-
ly those persons who hold land on which ravenue is asseaaed and
who are cosharers in the to a share in
Khewat are entitled
•
proportion to the revenue paid·by them.
See llal1lt )Iola Sbm;
Khan v. Qiulaa � 1.1.R. (XIII) Lahore 92 it also appears B
to be settled law in P1mjab that the rights of a proprietor in
the Shamilat' are not a mere accessory to the land held by him
and therefore 'an alienation of the latter doea not � fact:!
confer any rights in the former to the alienee.1 (Vide llai..n v.
Sai, 1.1.R. (9) Lshore 501, and the casea noted therein). Further
according to Rattigan' s Digest "In the absence of custom none of C
the proprietors can do anything which alters the condition of the
joint property without the consent of all the co-sharers".
(Article 225). "Nor can any individual proprietor plant or cut
trees on the cODDOn land, nor sink a well, nor appropriate housea
built for COlllDOn purposes except with such consent" (Article
226). "Nor in the absence of custom can the will of the majority D
of a village comnunity prevail against that of the minority when
the question is one as to the disposal of the CODDOn property in
such a way as to preclude all use of it by the owners.· (Article
227) Thus it is seen that Shamilat Deb or Village Coanon Land
•

has certain distinctive and characteristic features of its own
and even a majority of the CO'"Sharers · cannot destroy its
character. E

In 1947, at the time of the partition of Illdia under the
British into Independent India and Independent Pakistan, there
was a terrible holocaust and an 1mprecedented movement of popula
tion, millions of Hindus and Sikhs moving from We�t Punjab to .
East Punjab and millions of Muslims mov11J8 from East Punjab and F
present llaryana to West Punjab. Multidimetl$ionsl, interlinked
problems of administration of the properties of those who had
..
left the co1mtry and rehabilitation of those that had poured into
the co1mtry soon arose.

It was noticed by this Court in Indira Sohanlal v. G
Custodian of Evacuee Property, [1955] 2 s.c.R. 1117, it was in
order "to meet the 1mprecedented situation of sudden migration of
vast sections of population on a large scale from West Punjab
to East Punjab and vice versa, leaving . most of the properties
which they had, movable and· immovable, agricultrual and non-
agricultural1 the concerned Governments had to take wide legisla- H
• tive powers to deal •'1th the situation, to set up the necessary
'
4b SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 S.C.R.

•
administrative machinery, 'and to evolve and give effect to their
A policies in regard thereto from tiaie to time". It was further
noticed, "The earliest of these legislative measures so far as we
are concerned, was- the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of
Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947), which came
into force on the 12th December, 1947. This Act was amended by
the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) (Amend-
B ment) Ordinance, 1948 (East Punjah Ordinacne No. 11 of 1948) and
later by East Punjab Evacuees' (1\dministration of Property)
(Amendment) Act, 1948, (East Punjab Act XXVI of 1948)." The
various -steps and administrative measures taken to settle the
displaced agricultural population who came over frcim WeBt Punjab,
on the hurriedly abandoned lands of the Evacuees from East Punjab
are to be .found described in the Land Resettlement Manual by Shr.i
c Tarlok Sin&h who was then the Director General of Relief and
Rehabilitation. It was later realised that the various Provin-
cial Acts enacted by the several provincial leglslatures sl1oulr:i
,be replaced by a Central Law and a Central AdministratiOil· So
there was first a Central Ordinance (27 of 1949) and then tho
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 which came into
force on 17th April, 1950. The Act provided for a Centralised
D Law and a Centraltsed Administration and the creation of dn
office of Custodian General.

Under Section 8(2) of the 1\dministration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1950, all property which had vested in the Custo-
dians appointed by the State Governments under the repealed State
E Acts were to be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such
under Central Act and became vested in the Custodian appointed
under the Central Act. Section 8 (2) which may be usefully
extracted is as follows :

"Where, immediately before the commencement of this
F Act, any property in a State had vested as evacuee
property in any person exercising the powers of Custo-
dian under any law repealed hereby, the property
shall, on the commencement of this Act, be deemed to
be evacuee property declared as such within the mean-
ing of this Act, and shall be deemed to have vested in
G
the Custodian appointed or deemed to have been appoin-
ted for the State under this Act and shall continue to
so vest."

The effect of the operation of the Provincial and Central Acts.
relating to Evacuee Property was that Evacuee Property became
GRAM PANCHAYAT V• MALWINDER SINGH [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.J 47

vested in the Custodian but it must be noted that what became A
vested in the Custodian was that property left ·behind by the
evacuee, no more and no less. If the evacuee had left behind him
Khewat land it became vested in the Custodian. If the evacuee
had left behind him the right to a share in Shamlat-deh lands,
' that too became vested in the Custodian. The vesting, however,
did not divest Shamilat-'!eh lands of their ciu>racter as Shamlat- B
deh lands and convert them into Khewat land. Shamilat-deh lands
could only continue and did continue to be Shamilat-deh even
after they became vested in the Custodian and the Custodian could
only deal with them as a Shamilat-deh lands in the same manner
in which the Muslim properitors could have dealt with them had
they not migrated to Pakistan. That was the position after the c
Parliament enacted the Administration of Evacuees Property Act,
1950.

At that stage came the Punjab Village Common Land Regu-
lation Act of 1953 which has been held by this Court to be legis-
lation aimed at agrarian reform. It had nothing to do and it did D
not purport to have anything to do with the administration. of
evacuee property. All Shamilat-deh lands whether they belonged to
the proprietary body of villagers consisting only of non-evacuees
or whether they belonged to the proprietary body of villagers
the interests of some of whom had become vested in the Custodian
under the various Evacuee Property laws, were dealt with by the
Punjab Act without distinction; All Shamilat-deh lands, notwith-
standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law for
the time being in force, became vested in the village Panchayat.
As we said earlier the Punjab Act was a law providing for
agrarian reform and it neither purported to be nor was it a law
regulating the administration of Evacuees Property.
F
In l.11njit Singh v. State of Punjab [1965] 1 s.c.R. 82, the
very queati?n arose whether a law providing for the taking away
of Shamilat-deh lands from the proprietors and given over to the
village Panchayat for allotment to non-proprietors was a law
relating to agrarian reforms and whether such a lav was protected
bY Article 3l(A). It is worthwhile to recalling what the Consti- G
tution Bench said in answer to the <1uestion posed before them?
They explained the amplitude of rural development and agrarian
reforms in the following words :

The High Court was also right in its view that the
proposed changes in the Shamilst-deh and abadi-deh H
were included in the general scheme of planning of
48 SIJPRIOO! COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A
rural areas and the productive utilisation of vacant
and waste lands. The scheme of rural developnent today
envisages not only equitable distribution of land so
that there is no undue imbalance in society resulting
in a landless class on the one hand and a
B concentration of land in the hands of a few on the
other, but envisages also the raising of economic
standards and bettering rural health and social
conditions. Provisions for the assignment of lands to
village panchayat for the use of the general cODlllWl-
ity, or for hospitals, schools, manure .pits, tanning
groups etc. eoure for the benefit of rura.l population
c 1111st be considered to be an essential part of the
redistribution of holdings and open lands to which no
objections apparently taken. If agrarian reforms are
to succeed, mere distribution of land to the .landless
is not enough. There DDls·t be a proper planning of
rura,l economy and conditions and a body like the
village Panchayat is best designed to promote rural
D welfare than individual owners of small portions of
lands. Further, the village Panchayat is an authority
for purposes of Part Ill as was conceded before us and
it has the protection of Article 31-A because of this
character even i f the taking over of Shamilat-deh
moounts to acquisition. In our opinion, the High Court
E was right in deciding as it did on this part of the
case. n

, "With respect to abadi -deh the same reasoning 11R1st
apply. The settling of a body of agricultural artisans
(such as the village carpenter the village blacksmith,
F the village tanner,farrier wheelwright, barber,washer-
man etc.) is a part of rural planning and can be com-
prehended in a scheme of agrarian reforms. It is a
trite saying that India lives in villages and a scheme
to make villages self-sufficient cannot but be regard-

G
ed as part of the larger reforms which consolidation
of holdings, fixing of ceilings on lands, distribution
..'
of surplua lands and utilising 'lf vacant and wasi:e
lands contemplate. The four Acts, namely, the Consoli -
. dation Act, the Village Panchayat Act, the Comoon
Lands Regulation Act and the Security of Tenure Act,
are a part of a general scheme of reforms and any
!I modification of rights such as the present had the
GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAI.WINDER SINGH [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.] 49

protection of Article 31-A. The High Court was thus A
right . in its conclusion on this part of the case
also."

We ha~e quoted this passage in extenso in order to emphasise the
meaning to be attached to expressions like 'agrarian reforms',
'marketing', etc. for which various legislations have been made. B
Occasionally we notice that some courts have a tendency to
coru:ine these expressions to strait-jacket meanings, instead of
giving a meaning of wide implications.

So we have the authoritativ~ pronouncement of a Constitu-
tion Bench of this Court that the Punjab Act Which had been c
reserved for the assent of the President and which did have the
assent of the President is a law relating to agrarian reform and
therefore immune from challenge, under Article 31-A, on the
ground that the law infringed any of the Fundamental Rights
enumerated in that Article. We have already noticed that the
effect of the Administration of the Evacuees Property Act was D
not to take away the character of Shamilat-deh as Shamilat-deh
but only to vest in the Custodian such interest as the Evacuee
possessed in the Shamilat-deh. The interest which the erstwhile
evacuees possessed in the Shamilat-deh was neither enlarged nor
abridged. The land continued to be Shamilat-deh and it could be
the subject of competent State Legislation as Shamilat-deh. If
for the purposes of agrarian reform the legislature of the State
enacted a law as it was competent to do, and consent to which was
accorded by the President under Article 31-A of the Constitution,
we do not see any justification for the argument that there was
any conflict between the Punjab Act and the Central Act. To
illustrate, it would be Wholly wrong to suggest that on a
Zamindari becoming vested in the Custodian on account of the F
Muslim Zamindar (intermediary) migrating to Pakistan raiyati land
in the village changed its character and the occupancy rights of
the raiyats ceased in the· lands, merely because the Zamindar
migrated to Pakistan and the Zamindari became vested in the
Custodian. Similarly lands in an erstwhile Zamindar set apart
for pasture, as grazing grounds etc. did not lose their character G
as such on the migration of the Zamindar to Pakistan. When the
Parliament and the State Legislature, each of them legislate in
their owo field with respect to different subjects -in this case
Evacuee Property and Shamilat-deh we do not find any reason to
conclude that there was necessarily a conflict between the two
legislations. The question in the present case is not whether H
50 SUPREME COURT R!:PORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A there was ·any conflict between the Central and the State ·Legisla-
tions but whether the legislature of the State could make a law
relating to agrarian reform in respect of property which included
property which by a process of law had become vested in the
Central Government or the Custodian. We do not see any reason why
the State Legislature should be considered incompetent to make a
law relating to agrarian reform, if indeed it is a law relating
to agraraian reforms as it has been found to be so, in the
present case, even it affects land vested in the Central Govern-
ment or the Custodian. In this view of the matter, I agree with
c the order proposed by my lord the Chief Justice.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.

·-