Holding

Section 19DD exempts only land originally granted for gallantry before 26 January 1950 and does not extend to compensation land, therefore the tenant’s right to purchase under Section 18 remains valid.

Summary

The appellant, S.K. Majumdar, inherited land granted to his father as a gallantry award in Lyallpur before 1950. After partition, the family received 69 acres of compensation land in Jullundur district, of which 19 acres were occupied by the respondent as a tenant. The respondent applied under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 to purchase the land and was initially permitted to do so. The appellant obtained an ejectment order, leading to a series of revisions that ultimately allowed the purchase. The appellant contended that Section 19DD, inserted in 1968, exempted the land because it originated from a gallantry award, even though it was compensation land, and thus barred the tenant’s purchase right. The Supreme Court held that the exemption applies only to land originally granted for gallantry and not to land allotted as compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, so the tenant’s statutory right to purchase under Section 18 prevailed.

Issues considered

Whether land allotted as compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 is covered by the exemption in Section 19DD of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
Whether equity can override the statutory provision of Section 19DD in favor of the appellant.

Legislation cited

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953s. 14A, s. 18, s. 19DD, s. 9

Subjects

gallantry award landcompensation landPunjab Security of Land Tenures ActSection 19DDtenant purchase rightequity vs statuteDisplaced Persons Actpartitionland tenureexemption

Judgment

.,
SAILEN KRISHNA MAJUMDAR
A
v.
MALIK LABHU '!\fASIH (DECEASED) REPRESENTED
BY SMT. JASS! & ORS.

FEBRUARY 21, 1989
B
[G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.)

Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954:
Exemption in respect of gq//antry award /and-Whether available in
respect of land allotted under this Act.

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953: Sections 9, 14A. I~ c
and 19DD-Grant of land for gallantry before January 26, 1951!-
·~ Whether to be taken in account in computing surplus area.

Practice and Procedure: Whether equities are equal-Law should
prevail. D

Word and Phrases: 'In aequa/i jure, melior est conditio possi·
dentis'-Meaning of.

~ The father of the appellant was conferred a gallantry award post·
humously by the Government wherewith a piece of land situated in E
Lyallpur district was granted to him, and was allotted to the appellant
who took possession on July 24, 1947. Consequent to the partition of the
country the family migrated to India where the Government allotted
about 69 standard acres of land in Jullundur district as compensation
- for the land Jell behind in Pakistan. Out of this land 19 standard acres
l came under the possession of the respondent as a tenant. F
t On February, 1961 the respondent tiled an application under s. 18
of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 to the Assistant
Collector stating that he was a tenant in respect of the aforesaid land
and should be granted permission to purchase the same. The Assistant
Collector granted the requisite permission subject to the payment of G
Rs.21,007.88P in ten equal half yearly instalments. The appellant
appealed to the Collector who upheld the permission to purchase. but
"!.nhanced the amount payable to the appellant as landlord.

During the pendency of these proceedings the appellant moved an
application under s. 9 read with s. l 4A of the Act for ejectment of the H
.. 817
·~-\
·''
i' 'f'

818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A respondent and obtained an order an 27th September, 1961.

The respondent moved a revision petition before the Commis-
sioner in the proceedings initiated under s. :18 of the Act, and the
Commissioner made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner
for setting aside the orders of the 'Assistant Collector and the Collector
B allowing the purchase of land by the respondent on the ground that the
application of the appellant for the ejectment of the respondent had '-.J_.
since been allowed. The Financial Commissioner, set aside the order of
purchase. The respondents' writ petition challenging this order was
allowed and the High Court quashed that order on 30th August, 1966.
\,_
On July 3, 1970 the appellant tiled a suit against the respondent
c for possession of the land contending that the respondent had entered
on a part of land as tenant and subsequently applied for the purchase of
the land under s. 18, but by virtue of s. 19 DD of the Act inserted on
August 3, 1968 with retrospective effect, the suit property of gallantry
award was exempted from the provisions of the Act. The Trial court
D dismissed the suit. The order was affirmed in appeal by the Additional
District Judge, and the second appeal to the High Court was also dis-
missed holding that s. 19 DD of the Act was applicable to the suit land
and the tenant could purchase it under s. 18.

In the appeal to this, Court, it was contended on behalf of the ,\.,
E appellant that the High Court was in error in holding that the land in
question having been granted to the appellant, the landlord in the year
1946 the same could not be said to be covered by the provisions of s. 19
DD of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It was also
contended that equity is in favour of the appellant as the land was as
compensation for the gallantry award land left by the awardee family at -:J
F Layallpur as a result of partition of the country, and that the privilege I
of exemption should be acquired by the compensation land, and that the f
appellant has acquired the right to purchase as a tenant in occupation
after a long time.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
G
HELD: 1.1. From the language of s. 19 DD of the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 which was inserted by the Punjab
Act No. 12 of 1968 and from the fact that the date of the award of the'Ji
grant of the land for gallantry having been before the 26th day of
January, 1950 so long as such land or, any portion thereof, had not
H passed from the original grantee into more than three su'ccessive
S.K. MAJUMDAR v. M.L. MASIH [SAIKIA, J.) 819

hands by inheritance or bequest, and was held by the grantee, or any of
A
such hands, such land or portion, as the case may be, should not be
taken into account in computing the surplus area under the Act, nor
shall any tenant of such land or portion have the right to purchase it
under s. 18. [822C-D]

1.2. There is no basis for holding that the exemption In respect of B
the gallantry award land will be available in respect of the land given
· under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954 as compensation for the loss thereof. There is no infirmity in the
High Court judgment on this Court. [823A-B]

1.3. Equity is being claimed by bOth the parties. Under the
circumstances there is no other alternative but to let the loss lie where it
c
falls. As the maxim is, 'in aequali jure, melior est conditio possidentis'
·y Where the equities are equal, the law should prevail the respondent's
right to purchase must, therefore, prevail. [823B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2193 D
of 1982.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.1980 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 706 of 1973.

Dr. Y .S. Chitale and Ashok Grover for the Appellant. E

R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

+· K.N. SAIKIA, J. This appeal by special leave is from ·the judg- F
; ment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana iit the appellant"s
regular second appeal No. 706 of 1973 dismissing the appeal and allow-
ing the respondent's civil writ petition against the order passed by the
Assistant Collector.

Late Wg. Cdr. K.K. Majumdar, of the Indian Air Force, father G
of the appellant laid down his life during the second world war. He was
conferred a gallantary award posthumously by the Government where-
with 442 Kanals and 10 Marlas of i&nd bearing Chak Nos. 535-G-V
situated in Tehsil and District Layallpur was granted to him and was
allotted to the appellant Shri S.K. Majumdar who took possession on
July 24, 1947. Consequent to the partition of the country the family of H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19891 1 S.C.R.

late Wg. Cdr. K.K. Majumdar had to migrate to India where the
A ~
Government allotted 69 standard acres and 2 units of land to the
appellant in Village Dhogri, Tehsil and District Jullundhur as compen-
sation for the land left behind at Layallpur, Pakistan. Out of this land
19 standard acres came under possession of the respondent Malik I
Labhu Masih (now deceased) as a tenant.
B
On February 26, 1961 Malik Labhu Masih filed an application f
under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953,
hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to the Assistant Collector stating
that he was a tenant in respect of the land in question and should be
granted permission to pucchase it. As per order of the Assistant ~
Collector Grade I, Jullundhur dated 15th January, 1962 the said Labhu
c Masih was granted the requisite permission subject to the payment of
Rs.21,007.88 P. in 10 equal half yearly instalments of Rs.2100.80 P.
each. The appellant appealed therefrom to the Collector Jullundhur ~
who upheld the permission to purchase but enhanced the amount pay-
able to the appellant as landlord to Rs.23,133.53 P. During the
D pendency of the said proceedings the appellant moved an application
under section 9 read with section 14A of the Act for ejectment of the
respondent and obtained an order on 27th September, 1961. The
respondent moved a revision petition before the Commissioner in the
proceedings initiated under section 18 of the Act and the Commis-
sioner made recommendation to the Financial Commissioner for ,\,..;
E setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector

-
allowing the purchase of land by the respondent on the ground that the
application of the appellant for ejectment of the respondent had since
been allowed. The Financial Commissioner accordingly set aside the
order of purchase. The respondent impugned that order in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in writ petition No. 1158 of 1963 and the
High Court quashed that order on 30th August, 1966. On July 3, 1970
-r,
F
the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for possession of the l
lands contending that the respondent had entered on a part of the land
as tenant and subsequently applied for purchase of the land under
section 18 of the Act but by virtue of section 19 DD of the Act, which
was inserted on August 3, 1968 with retrospective effect, the suit pro-
G perty of gallantry award was exempted from the provisions of the' Act
and as such the respondent could not purchase the land under section
18 of the Act and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as also
of High Court were nullity and the respondent was consequently liable
to be ejected. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellant's appeal "
therefrom was also having been dismissed by the Additional District
H Judge Jullundhur, the appellant preferred second appeal to the High
S.K. MAJUMDAR v. M.L. MASIH [SAIK!A, J.] 821

Court of Punjab and Haryana which also dismissed the appeal holding
A
that section 19 DD of the Act was not applicable to the suit land and
the tenant could purchase it under section 18.

Dr. Y.S. Chitale the learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the High Court was in error in holding that the land in question
having been granted to the appellant S.K. Majumdar, the landlord, in B
the year 1946 the same could not be said to be covered by the provi-
sions of section 19 DD of the Act. We are inclined to agree. Though
the Memorandum No. 2354-C Lahore, dated the 30th March, 1946
· from D.S.D. to the Conmissioner, Lahore, Rawalpindi and Multan
Divisions on the subject 'Award of land in the Punjab for acts of
gallantry in the field' with reterence to Punjab Government Memo-
randum No. 3583-C dated 30th November, 194,. contained the instruc- c
tions to allot two squares rectangles of land to the heir of the grantee
noted in the margin in accordance with the orders contained in the
aforesaid Memorandum, and showed the appellant Shri S.K.
Majumdar, it could not been said that the grant itself was to the appel-
lant. The said Memorandum No. 3583-C dated 30th November, 1944 D
clearly showed that the Government had decided that in the case of
posthumous grants allotments would be made to the hehs in the
following order:

"(a) the male lineal descendants of the deceased in the
male line of descent." E

It having not been in dispute that the appellant S.K. Majumdar was
' the male lineal descendant of the deceased Wg. Cdr. K.K. Majumdar,
the allotment was to be made in his name and hence it was done so.

rI Section 19 DD of the Act which was inserted by the Punjab Act F
No. 12 of 1968 and was to be deemed always to have been inserted
said:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where
any land is granted for gallantry at any time before the 26th
day of January, 1950 to any member ofthe armed forces, G
whether maintained by the Central Government or by any
Indian State, then, so long as such land or, any portion
thereof, as the case may be, has not passed from the origi-
nal gr&,,.ee into more than three successive hands by in-
heritance or bequest, and is held by the grantee, or any of
such hands, such land or portion, as the case may be, shall H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 1 S.C.R.

not be taken into account on computing the surplus area
A
under this Act, nor shall any tenant of such land or portion
have the right to pitrchase it under section 18.

Provided that where such land or portion has passed
into more than three such hands and the person holding
B such land or portion, immediately before the 3rd August,
1967, is a person to whom it has passed by inheritance or
bequest, the exemption under this section shall apply, to
such land or portion thereof, as the case may be, during the
life time of such person."

c of theFrom the language of this section and from the fact that the date
award of the grant of the land for gallantry having been before
the 26th day of January, 1950 so long as such land or, any portion
thereof, as the case may be, had not passed from the original grantee
into more than three successive hands by inheritance or bequest and
was held by the grantee, or any of such hands, such land or portion, as
D the case may be, should not be taken into account on computing the
surplus area under the Act, nor shall any tenant of such land or portion
have the right to purchase it under section 18.

Mr. R.K. Garg the learned counsel for the respondents, while
not refuting the proposition of law, points out that the land in respect
E of which the respondent has obtained the order of purchase as tenant is
not the land granted to Wg. Cdr. K.K. Majumdar for gallantry award.
That land was in Layallpur and the suit land in respect of which the
respondent acquired socially beneficial right of purchase is situate at
village Dhogri Tehsil and District Jullundhur in the State of Punjab
and as such it cannot be exempted under section 19 DD. Dr. Chitale
F answers that this land was given as compensation for the gallantry
award land left behind by the awardee family at Layallpur as a result of
partition of the country and as such equity demands that privilege of
exemption should be acquired by the compensation land. Besides, Dr.
Chitale submits, that equity is in favour of the appellant who has
acquired the right to purchase as tenant in occupation after a long
G time.

We are referred to the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Com- +
pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It is an Act to provide for the
payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced
persons and for matters connected therewith. We have not been shown
H in it any provision to the effect that any land given as compensation to
S.K. MAJUMDAR v. M.L. MASIH (SAIKIA, J.J 823

a displaced person for loss of gallantry award land may imbibe the A
convent of exemption ·available under section 19 DD of the Act. We
are consequently of the view that there is no basis for holding that the
exemption in respect of the gallantry award land will be available in
respect of the land given under the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 as compensation for the loss thereof.
We find no infirmity in the High Court judgment on this count. B

Equity is being claimed by both the parties. Under the circum-
stances we have no other alternative but to let the loss lie where it falls.
As the maxim is, 'in aequali jure, melior est conditio possidentis'.
Where the equities are equal, the law should prevail. The respondent's
right to purchase must, therefore, prevail. c
)< In the result, this appeal fails and hence dismissed, but without
any order as to costs. The stay order stands vacated.

N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

t
I

·•
I