1983 PLP 867 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, J.‑‑This petition for leave has been filed to challenge the construction placed at paragraph 12(1) of M. L. R 115 (hereafter called the said Regulation) by the Lahore High Court. The relevant facts are that the first ten respondents (hereafter. Called the owners) own land in the Sheikhupura District in the Punjab, but as none of them own land in excess of the limit prescribed under paragraph 8 of the said Regulation, their lands were not liable to acquisition, therefore, did not file any declaration under paragraph 12 of the said Regulation. As according to the petitioner this was in breach of the provision of the said paragraph, in the events that happened on a suo motu provision, the Chairman of the petitioner held by his order dated 24‑11‑1974 that the owners had infringed the mandatory provisions of the said Regulation and directed their pro. section. The owners challenged this order in a writ petition in the Lahore High Court and as that petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by its judgment dated 16‑7‑1976 the petitioner has filed this petition for leave. Paragraph 12(1)(b) of` the" said Regulation, on which Mr. Rizvi relies, reads. "A Commission may, by order published in the official Gazette, direct the following classes of persons to submit to such authority, in such manner and form and by such date, as may be specified in the order, the following declaration‑ (a) .............................. (b) declarations by persons who on 20th December, 1971, owned or possessed an area in excess of twelve thousand produce index units calculated on the basis of classification of soil as entered in the revenue records for Kharif 1969 and Rabi 1969‑70, or irrigated land in excess of one hundred and fifty acres, whichever shall be greater". The question is of the construction of paragraph 12(1) (b) and in accept ing the contention of the owners, the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court observed "A careful study of clause (b) will show that there are two limits men tioned therein namely, 12,000 Produced Index Units calculated on the basis of classification of soil with reference to the revenue records for Kharif 1969 and Rabi 1969‑70 and 150 acres of irrigated land. These two limits are not always equal . . . . . Since these two limits are not always equal it has been indicated by the Legislature that, while applying clause (b) of para. 12 (1), only that limit should be kept in view which is the greater of the two. That is, if in relation to a certain holding, 150 acres work out, in terms of units, to be more than 12,000 then 150 acres is the greater of the two limits. In such a case the land holder is required to file declaration only if the area of his land, in terms of irrigated acres, exceeds, 150 (acres) . It is, thus, clear that the expression "whichever shall be greater" has been used by the Legislature to absolve the landholders, whose holdings exceed only one of the limits and do not exceed the other, from the necessity of filing declar ations." Mr. Rizvi submitted that these observations were not correct, and reliance was placed inter alia on the Tribunal order of 24‑7‑1974. We may explain here that the Tribunal has pointed out in its order that it was com petent to examine the validity of transfers of land made after 1‑3‑1967. Then with reference to plots of land exceeding 150 acres of irrigated land at the relevant date, the Tribunal observed : "There is a great possibility of their exceeding the limit of 12,000 P. I. Us. even if transfer by them of a small area is not validated. This is also essential to examine the correctness of the calculation of P. I. U.s as very little increase in P.

1. Us. will take the area beyond the allowed limit of 12,000 P.

1. Us. There is a thin margin between 12,000 P. I. Us. and 1.50 acres of irrigated area, this is why the choice for retaining 150 acres of irrigated area of 12,000 P.1. Us. is provided. In most of the cases of fertile irrigated land P. I. Us. of 150 acres exceed 12,000 P. I. Us." The learned Judges of the High Court were not impressed by the Tribunal's view for the obvious reason that it is the duty of the Courts to give effect to the language of statute when there is no ambiguity in it, and, a observed by them, the words "whichever shall be greater" in para. 12(1)(b) of the said Regulation make it very clear that owners of land are required to file declarations only when the area of land owned by them exceeds both 150IA acres of irrigated land and is in excess of 150 acres. Additionally, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there is some ambiguity about this provision, it must be construed strictly and in favour of the subject because it is a penal provision. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the view of the High Court. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. S. Q, Petition dismissed.