Ram Chand and another vs Munshi Ram and others

H.R. Sodhi, J.—These are nineteen connected writ petitions raising common questions of law and fact and, as agreed between the learned counsel for the parties, can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. In seventeen of them (Nos. 831, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890 891, 892, 893, 894 895, 896 and 333 of 1968) the impugned order was passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on 23rd November, 1967, whereas in two of them (Nos. 1685 and 1686 of 1968). the order now sought to be quashed is dated 26th October, 1967. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not referred to the facts of different cases and submits that the writ petitions have to be disposed of on a common pattern of facts as stated hereinafter.

Vishan Dass, father of Munshi Ram and others respondents 1 to 5, was a displaced person who held agricultural had in West Punjab, Pakistan. He died on 11th April, 1948, leaving behind his sons and heirs, Munshi Ram etc. respondents. The allotment of land in lieu of that left by the deceased in Pakistan was, however, made in the name of the deceased and the land allotted was 124 standard acres and 1/4 units situate in village Kalotha, Tehsil Fatehbad, District Hissar. The total area in possession of Munshi Ram and others came to 441 acres when converted into ordinary acrage. Since the allotment had been made in the name of their deceased father in standard acres, they seem to have thought that each one of them holding 24 standard acres and 13 units as an heir of the deceased was a small landowner within the meaning of the Punjab Security of Land Tennures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act). They filed five ejectment petitions in the year 1964 against five sets of tenants, two of whom are petitioners in Civil Writ Nos. 896 and 333 of 1968. It is not disputed before me that these petitioners occupied 13 acres 5 Kanals, and 3 acres 2 Kanals and 13 Marias respectively, which constituted their tenancy. It is also not disputed that the petitioners in all the petitions hold as tenants 307 acres 2 Kanals and 2 Marias of land allotted to the deceased Vishan Dass and inherited by respondents 1 to 5. In the ejectment proceedings the whole controversy centered round the issue as to whether in view of the proviso to section 2(3) of the Act respondents 1 to 5 could be treated as small landowners or they were big landowners being the heirs of a displaced person in whose name the allotment had actually been made. The Assistant Collector before whom ejectment petitions were filed did not accept the plea of the landlords that they were small landowners entitled to eject the tenants. He held that the share of each of the five respondents who sought ejectment came on conversion to 88 ordinary acres and this area exceeded the limit of permissible area which was only 60 ordinary acres. In this view of the matter the respondents were considered to be big landowners and the petitions for ejectment were dismissed.

The appeal filed by the respondents landlords Munshi Ram etc. were dismissed and the revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner also met with no success, with the result that the writ petitions were filed in this Court and the matter was ultimately decided by the Full Bench in the case reported as Munshi Ram and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana (1967) 69 P.L.R. 930. It was held that respondents 1 to 5 could not be treated as small landowners entitling them to eject the tenants on that basis. This decision of the Full Bench was given on 30th August, 1967.

There is yet another phase of litigation between the tenants (petitioners) and the landowners respondents 1 to 5 out of which the present writ petitions have arisen. The petitioners in the same year 1964, made applications u/s 18 of the Act before the Assistant Collector, First, Grade, Hissar, alleging that respondents 1 to 5 were big landowners who had not reserved the land in possession of the petitioners in the year 1953 as required u/s 5 (1) of the Act, nor had they selected this land in the year 1958 in the exercise of their right given to them by virtue of sections 5-A and 5-B of the Act, which were inserted by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Act, 1957, (Punjab Act 46 bf 1957) with the result that the petitioners could exercise their right of pur thase u/s 18. According to these newly added provisions of sections 5-A and 5-B (1), it was open to a landowner, who owned or held land in excess of the permissible area and had not made any reservation earlier after the coming into force of the Act on 15th April, 1953, to make within a period of six months from the commencement of the amending Act a declaration in respect of the lands owned or held by him in the prescribed manner and to select his permissible area. Sections 5-A, 5-B and 5-C added by the amending Act of 1957 may be reproduced here with advantage-

5-A. Every landowner or tenant, who owns or holds land in excess of the permissible area, and where land is situated in more than one Patwar Circle, shall furnish, within a period of six months from the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Act, 1957, a declaration supported by an affidavit in respect of the lands owned or held by him in such form and manner and to such authority as may be prescribed.

5-B(1) A land-owner who has not exercised his right of reservation under this Act, may select his permissible area and intimate the selection to the prescribed authority within the period specified in section 5-A and in such form and manner as may be prescribed :

Provided that a landowner who is required to furnish a declaration u/s 5-A shall intimate his selection along with that declaration.

(2) If a landowner fails to select his permissible area in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may, subject to the provisions of section 5-C, select the parcel or parcels of land which such person is entitled to retain under the provisions of this Act:

Provided that the prescribed authority shall not make the selection without giving the landowner concerned an opportunity of being heard.

5-C. (1) If a landowner or tenant fails to furnish the declaration supported by an affidavit as required by section 5-A, the prescribed authority not below the rank of Collector may, by order, direct that the whole or part of the land of such landowner or tenant in excess of ten standard acres to be specified by such authority shall be deemed to be the surplus area of such landowner or tenant and shall be utilized by the State Government for the purpose mentioned in section 10-A :

Provided that no such order shall be made without giving the landowner or tenant concerned an opportunity of being heard.

(2) Where a landowner or tenant who is required to furnish a declaration u/s 5-A fails so to do the prescribed authority may in respect of him obtain the information required to be shown in the declaration through such agency as it may deem fit.

"Permissible area" is defined in section 2(3) of the Act, the relevant part where of runs as under:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

* * *

(3) "Permissible area" in relation to a landowner or a tenant, means thirty standard acres and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed sixty acres, such sixty acres:

Provided that-

* * *

(ii) for displaced person-

(a) who has been allotted land in excess of fifty standard acres, the permissible area shall be fifty standard acres or one hundred ordinary acres, as the case may be;

(b) who has been allotted land in excess of thirty standard acres, but less than fifty standard acres the permissible area shall be equal to his allotted area;

(c) who has been allotted land less than thirty Standard acres, the permissible area shall be thirty standard acres, including any other land or part thereof, if any, that he owns in addition.

Explanation.-For the purposes of determining the permissible area of a displaced person the provisions of the proviso (ii) shall not apply to the, heirs and successors of the displaced person to whom 1and is allotted.

There are also in existence two sets of rules called the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953, and the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, both hereinafter called the Rules, and they relate, amongst other matters, to the procedure for reservation of permissible area or selection thereof.

The applications of the petitioners for purchase, as referred to above, were dismissed by the Assistant Collector who held that respondents 1 to 5 were small landowners and the petitioners could not, therefore, claim to purchase the land u/s 18 of the Act. On appeal the learned Collector remanded the case and after the remand the Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that respondents 1 to 5 were not to be treated as small landowners. The other conditions which could entitle the petitioners to purchase the land u/s 18 were found to exist and the applications were accordingly allowed. Munshi Ram and the others respondents then filed an appeal before the Collector who dismissed the same. A revision petition was filed by the land-owners respondents before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which had not been disposed of till 26th October, 1967. On 26th October, 1967 the Financial Commissioner, Haryana was seized of R.O. R. Nos. 478 and 479 of 1966-67 filed by Munshi Ram and others (landlords) against some other tenants. It is not necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions to point out the details of the controversies that arose before the Financial Commissioners and the High Court during all this period from 1964 till the Full Bench decision on 30th August, 1967 about the meaning and effect of ''explanation'' to the proviso to sub-Section (3) of section 2 of the Act defining ''permissible area'' and the conversion of standard acres into ordinary acres and vice versa in order to determine if a landowner was to be treated as a small landowner or otherwise. This controversy was set at rest for the first time by a Full Bench of this Court in Munshi Ram''s case. When revision petitions (R.O.R. Nos. 478 and 479 of 1966-67) came up for hearing before the Financial Commissioner (respondent 6) on 26th October, 1967 by which time the Full Bench decision had been given, the respondents landowners could, no longer raise the contention that they were small landowners because of their having got only 24 standard acres and 13 units each as a result of inheritance from their deceased father. It has already been stated that on conversion 24 standard acres and 13 units would come to 88 ordinary acres and in view of the conversion formula as laid down by the Full Bench respondents 1 to 5 ceased to be small landowners. The Full Bench held that in case of a displaced person the permissible area would be fifty standard acres or hundred ordinary acres only and even if the area held by it landowner in terms of standard acres was less than fifty still on conversion it should not exceed hundred ordinary acres. In regard to non displaced persons, the permissible area, according to this very judgment, could be thirty standard acres and on conversion not more than sixty ordinary acres.

The petitioners were not parties to R.O.R. Nos. 478 and 479 of 1966-67 referred to above, which were heard by the Financial Commissioner on 26th October, 1967, after the Full Bench judgment though respondents 1 to 5 were very much there being the petitioners in these revision petitions against other tenants. The issue between the respondents in those revision petitions and respondents 1 to 5 had, of course, throughout been the same viz. whether the later were to be treated as small landowners or big landowners. The Financial Commissioner following the Full Bench decision held that Munshi Ram etc. could not be treated as displaced persons, to whom the original allotment had been made and as a result of the amendment to sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Act by Punjab Act No. 14 of 1962 whereby an ''explanation'' had been inserted, it was the father of respondents 1 to 5 who was the original allottee and they (the respondents) could not therefore be small landowners. It was at this stage, in the course, of arguments before the Financial Commissioner, that Mr. Ram Rang, Advocate, appearing for the landowners respondents brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner that seventeen cases filed by the same landowners against various other tenants involving: similar question of law were -pending before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, and that they be also sent for. so that all cases were finally disposed of without any further delay. There is an affidavit of Mr. Ram Rang, an Advocate of this Court, to this effect on the record and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of its contents. The Financial Commissioner, exercising his powers u/s 24 of the Act read with section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, ordered on the same day that all those cases to which reference had been given by Mr. Ram Rang, be called for and fixed for hearing before him. A copy of this order is annexure ''H'' with the writ petition. He had, of course, on that very date, disposed of the revision petitions of the landowners respondents 1 to 5 against other tenants unconnected with the petitioners and directed that the Collector should allow the landowners to select their permissible area in accordance with section 5-B (2) and in doing so he would not deprive the tenants-respondents in those petitions from purchasing the surplus area of the landowners Munshi Ram etc. provided they were the first amongst the eligible tenants to make their applications u/s 18 of the Act. This order is annexure ''G'' with the writ petition No. 881 of 1968. In this order, the Financial Commissioner proceeded to make an observation with regard to other eligible tenants as well which included the present petitioners and gave a direction to the collector to allow their applications for purchase of their tenancies u/s 18, but to the extent of the surplus area of the landowners which had to be determined by the Collector u/s 5-B. The cases which were sent for by an order of the same date came up for hearing before the Financial Commissioner on 23rd November, 1967 and passed the impugned order annexure ''J'' in which he gave the same directions as are to be found in his order of 26th October, 1967 except that he further added that in selecting the area for the landowners the Collector might bear in mind the provisions of section 5(c) of the Act Hence the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of the order of the Financial Commissioner pissed on 23th November, 1967 read with that of 26th October, 1967.

It is not disputed that the parties were heard but what has been alleged in the petitions is that both the orders of the Financial Commissioner as passed on 26th October, 1937 and 23th November, 1967 are arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and without jurisdiction. One of the allegations is that the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who has been impleaded as respondent 6, acted under the pressure and influence of one Shri Gobind Lal Batra, M.L.A., Fatehabad, who had been Chief Parliamentary Secretary to Rao Birendra Singh, the former Chief Minister of Haryana, and it was under that pressure that the cases from the file of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, were sent for through a special massenger on the oral request of respondents 1 to 5 in order to help them and hearing was accordingly fixed for 23rd November, 1967. The impugned orders are thus alleged to be passed on extraneous considerations and under the influence of the said Chief Parliamentary Secretary. According to the petitioners, the Financial Commissioner (respondent 6) went out of his way for the alleged extraneous reasons to get a selection made for respondents 1 to 5 in order to defeat the right of the petitioners to purchase the land comprised in their tenancies.

Both the parties are agreed that the landowners had not made any reservation within the prescribed period after the coming into force of the Act on 15th April, 1953, nor did they select any area in the year 1958 within six months of the coming into force of the amending Act of 1957.

Shri B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana, sworn an affidavit in reply to paras 7 and 8 of the writ petitions, wherein allegations of personal nature have been made against him. It is stated by him that it is absolutely false that Shri Gobind Lal, the then Chief Parliamentary Secretary, approached him for deciding the case in favour of the landowners respondents 1 to 5 or that he acted under his influence in calling for the records of the revision petitions pending before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. Mr. Grewal further states that, in fact, he did so on the request of Shri Ram Rang, counsel for the landowners petitioners in R.O.R. 478 and 479 of 1966-67, made during the course of arguments pointing out to him that identical questions of law were involved therein. It is also stated by him that service of notices was effected on the present petitioners and they appeared before him through their counsel Shri O. P. Punj on 23rd November, 1967 and it was after hearing both the parties that he made the impugned order on that date. He swears that these orders were passed on merit without any influence, pressure, favour or malice.

In the affidavit in reply to the writ petition filed by the Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, on behalf of the State of Haryana, respondent No. 6 it has been specifically pleaded that the orders of the Financial Commissioner allowing fresh right of selection of the permissible area to the landowners respondents 1 to 5 are correct and legal and the suggestion is that these respondents having not reserved their permissible area earlier in the honest belief that they were small landowners could be allowed to do so both legally and on grounds of justice and equity. It is admitted that the petitioners had deposited some installments towards the purchase price of the land in dispute in pursuance of the order of the Assistant Collector, but the plea is that it would not make them owners and all those orders and deposits would be subject to the final decision in appeal and revision The allegations of favouritism on the part of the Financial Commissioner have been denied and it is submitted in the affidavit that no injustice has been caused by the impugned orders of the Financial Commissioner.

A return has also been filed in the form of an affidavit by Parma Nand, son of Munshi Ram respondent No. 1. The deponent claims to be acquainted with all the facts of the case and to have been appearing in all the proceedings throughout. A preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioners have not come with clean hands and, therefore, not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been specifically denied that any help of Shri Gobind Lal Batra was secured by them or that an attempt was made to approach an officer of the status of the Financial Commissioner. It is, in fact, pleaded that the petitioners had made deliberately false statements in their affidavits in support of the writ petitions to secure admission of the same in this Court.

In the return of Perma Nand, a reference has been made to the various judgments of the Financial Commissioner and the High Court till the final Full Bench decision of this Court on 30th August. 1967. It is intended by these references to slow that respondents 1 to 5 had throughout acted bona fide because of the conflicting judgments of the Financial Commissioners and were under the erroneous but bona fide belief that they were small landowners possessed of only 24 standard acres and 13 units each, which were certainly less than thirty standard acres and that it was only for the first time when the Full Bench judgment was delivered that it was brought home to them that their belief hitherto fore was wrong. In the matter of summoning of the seventeen cases from the record of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, it is denied that it had been done under the pressure and influence of Shri Gobind Lal Batra. It is alleged that Shri O. P. Punj was the counsel for the tenants in all the cases including those in which the petitioners were not parties before the Financial Commissioner and he knew that the cases had been fixed for 23rd November, 1967 and it is wrong that he came to Chandigarh only to find out what was to be done. It may be mentioned here that there is no affidavit by Shri O.P. Punj filed by the petitioners either with the writ petitions or by way of replication.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions before me:

(1) That the Financial Commissioner acted mala fide in passing the impugned order under the pressure and influence of Shri Gobind Lal Batra, ex-M. L. A. who was for some time Chief Parliamentary Secretary to Rao Birendra Singh, former Chief Minister of Haryana;

(2) That the impugned order is without jurisdiction in asmuch as the Financial Commissioner who was dealing only with the matter of the petitioners right to purchase the land u/s 18 could not direct the Collector to exercise his powers u/s 5-B (2) with regard to selection of land for self-cultivation of the land-owners respondents. The contention is that jurisdiction to decide surplus area is entirely different from the one arising out of the purchase application u/s 18;

(3) that reservation and selection as contemplated in sections 5-A and 5-B(1) are different from the selection made by the Collector in exercise of the powers given to him u/s 5-B(2) and that latter selection cannot be equated with reservation or selection voluntarily made by the land-owner, so as to deprive a tenant of his right to purchase the land covered by the selection made by the Collector u/s 5-B(2);

(4) That selection u/s 5-B(2) cannot be made after the purchase application of a tenant has been decided by the Assistant Collector and the tenant has become an owner by virtue of the provisions of section 18(4)(b) on payment of the first installment of the purchase price under the order of the Assistant Collector permitting him to purchase the land.

Mr. J. N. Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondents, contends as follows:

(1) That the writ petitions are pre-mature inasmuch as it is not known yet what grievance the petitioners can possibly have when the Financial Commissioner has only remanded the case and made no order adverse to them. The submission is that the petitioners should have appeared before the Collector and if an order prejudicially affecting their legal rights had been passed by the said officer, they could have sought relief in accordance with law;

(2) That the petitions merit dismissal on the short ground that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and have deliberately made false averments;

(3) That the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is legal and within his jurisdiction and at any rate it is a just order. The petitioners have not shown how any injustice, much less manifest injustice, has been caused to them by the impugned order of remand. There is no error of law apparent on the record which can justify an interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India;

(4) That selection as contemplated in section 5-B(2) has the same meaning and concept as the one made by the land-owner himself and there is no distinction between a voluntary and involuntary selection and that howsoever a selection might be made so long as it is legal, a tenant cannot purchase the area selected for the landowner;

(5) That the petitioners could not be deemed to have become owners on depositing an installment in terms of section 18(4) (b) and the right of ownership would be subject to the final decision as may be made in appeal or revision since they all constitute one continuous proceedings as otherwise the right of appeal or revision would be rendered nugatory.

The contention of Mr. Kaushal that the writ petitions are premature and misconceived is full of force. I do not think any injustice has been caused to the petitioners and much less manifest injustice, so as to justify issuance of any writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Financial Commissioner has only remanded the case to the Collector for determining surplus area and making selection u/s 5-B(2) for the landowners respondents. It cannot be said at this stage what will be the actual grievance of the petitioners after the Collector has taken action under the said provision of law. It may be that the petitioners feel satisfied and are in a position to purchase the land which may be convenient and suitable for them. It is pre-mature on their part to agitate against such an order. A right has been given to the petitioners to purchase surplus area of the landowners though in order to do justice amongst various tenants it has also been directed that the first among them entitled to make a purchase be given preference in the matter of purchase out of surplus area. The writ petitions merit dismissal on this short ground alone.

As regards the allegations of mala fides, I find that the petitioners have willfully made false allegations and would have ordered their prosecution but for the fact that in most of the cases affidavits are written in one language whereas the deponents have signed the same in another. For instance, in the case of Ram Chand, petitioner, in civil writ No. 885 of 1968, the affidavit is written in Urdu whereas the deponent has signed the same in Hindi or ''Landa'' characters. There is nothing to indicate that the contents of these affidavits were read over to them by the counsel or his clerk or the Oath Commissioner. In these circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners does not seem to be expedient. The petitioners have made a specific allegation that the Financial Commissioner had been approached by the land-owners respondents through Shri Gobind Lal Batra, Ex. M.L.A. Fatehabad and it was at his instance that the Financial Commissioner sent for the files of seventeen other cases pending before the Commissioner and disposed of the same by his impugned order. It is only the Financial Commissioner who has denied on oath these averments but Mr. Ram Rang, an advocate of this Court, who had appeared for the land-owners respondents before the Financial Commissioner, also filed his affidavit. It has been stated by the learned advocate in the affidavit that he requested the Financial Commissioner that the points involved in the seventeen revision petitions pending before the Commissioner, Ambala Division were identical with those arising in the revision petitions that had been heard on 26th October, 1967, between the present landowners respondents and one Ajmer Singh and that it was his request that led to the Financial Commissioner passing the order on the same date sending for the record from the Court of the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner in his affidavit has stated in unequivocal terms that no influence was brought to bear on him by the former Chief Parliamentary Secretary and that the allegations made by the petitioners were not only baseless but also malicious. Mr. O. P. Punj advocate was present when the order for summoning the seventeen revision petitions was made and he also represented the petitioners when their seventeen cases were heard. No affidavit of Mr. Punj has been filed for which the learned counsel appearing in these writ petitions should have insisted instead of making serious allegations simply at the instance of almost illiterate clients. The learned counsel also does not seem to have acted with that responsibility which was expected of him. The circumstances on the record support the version of Mr. Ram Rang. I have no reason to doubt the statements of the Financial Commissioner and Mr. Ram Rang, more so when they are made on oath. The writ petitions must be dismissed on this ground alone that the petitioners have made false averments in the writ petitions. A citizen invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and not try to mislead the Court by stating wrong facts. Some time the rule nisi is secured because of such false averments alleging mala fides against responsible officials or persons in authority. I have no doubt that in the present case, the petitioners have made false statements and this by itself is sufficient to dismiss the writ petitions without going into other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The contention of the learned counsel that the Financial Commissioner when bearing the revision petition arising out of an application for permission to purchase lard u/s 18 could not direct the Collector to exercise his powers u/s 5-B(2) is devoid of force. The permissible area as given in the Act is 30 standard acres and where such 30 Standard Acres are converted into ordinary acres, 60 such Acres. It is this much land only that a land-owner can retain for his self cultivation and the rest has to be declared as surplus. Land owner was required to make a reservation for his permissible area when the Act came into force on 15th April, 1953. Later, another opportunity was provided to him by inserting sections 5-A and 5-B (1) in the main Act by the Punjab Act 46 of 1957. If he still failed to avail of these opportunities and did not make a reservation which can also be described as selection, the Collector u/s 5-B(2) was enabled to select the parcel or parcels of land which the land-owner could retain. This contingency, however, carried a penalty in as much as the Collector could direct that instead of the landowner having the permissible area of 30 standard acres he would not have more than 10 standard acres as might be specified by the Collector and the rest would be treated as surplus. It was not the scheme and policy of the Act that the landowner should be left with nothing and be deprived altogether of the land. It was to remove all doubts in this regard that section 5-B(2) was inserted. The Financial Commissioner when he came to the conclusion in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court between the same parties decided on 30th August, 1967, that the landowners respondents could not be treated as small landowners, he suggested an action by the Collector u/s 5-B (2) and no exception can be taken to this course. It was a very just direction when we find that there had been till the decision of the Full Bench, a conflict of judicial opinion amongst the Financial Commissioners as to whether the landowners like the respondents being the heirs of a deceased displaced person could be treated as small landowners or not. The explanation to sub-section (3) of section 2 was added in the year 1962 by Punjab Act No. 14 of 1962 and given a retrospective effect so as to be deemed to have been in force since the 15th April, 1953. It was for the first time that it was declared by the Legislature by adding this explanation that for the purpose of determining permissible area of a displaced person the provisions of one proviso (ii) to sub section 3 would not apply to the heirs and successors of the displaced persons to whom the land had been allotted. The land-owners respondents were throughout bona fide litigating and the matter had to be decided by a Full Bench of this Court. It was a fit case where the Collector should have taken action u/s 5-B (2) and the Financial Commissioner did no wrong in giving such a direction. There is no question of blend of any two jurisdictions and the argument of the learned counsel is wholly fallacious and misconceived.

The next contention of Mr. Dhingra that there is a distinction between voluntary selection or reservation and involuntary selection u/s 5-B (2) has no merit. It is conceded by him that whatever might have been the difference of judicial opinion earlier, it can no longer be urged with reasonableness in view of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , that the expressions ''reservation'' and selection as used in section 5 (1) and 5-B (1) have a different connotation. It is also conceded that if a landowner had chosen to make a reservation on the commencement of the Act or later when another opportunity was given to him by the Amending Act 46 of 1957, a tenant had no right to purchase the area reserved or selected by the landowner. The contention, however, is that the Supreme Court judgment is distinguishable in as much as there the landowner had voluntarily selected the area and that the ratio of that case is not applicable where the Collector selects the parcel or parcels of land for the landowner by virtue of powers given to him by section 5-B(2). According to the learned counsel, the expression "select" as appearing in sub-section (2) of section 5-B cannot have the same meaning as in sub-section (1) of the same section and that since the petitioners are tenants of the land selected by the Collector they cannot be denied their right to purchase the same u/s 18 of the Act. I am afraid I cannot accept such a contention. It is true that in the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court the landowner had made selection u/s 5-B(l) and it was not a case of selection by the Collector u/s 5-B(2) but the observations made in the judgment leave no manner of doubt that the incidents of both reservation and selection are the same intended to give protection to the landlord against the proceedings of the tenants for the purchase of the land. A few of the observations so made may be quoted here with advantage:

Though ''reserved area'' has been defined, there is no definition of ''selected area''. This indicates that the Legislature did not introduce a new concept of selected area'' in the Act. Even a comparison of sections 5 and 5-B shows that the process of reservation and selection are almost the same. u/s 5 (1), the landowner, after making the reservation, intimates his selection in the prescribed form to the Patwari. It is therefore, manifest that the reservation is made by the process of selection. So too, u/s 5-B, a landowner, who has not exercised the right of reservation under the Act, may select his reserved area and intimate his selection. The wording of section 5-B indicates that the selection therein is a selection similar to that in section 5 (1) and the selection in section 5-B is because of default made in reserving by selection u/s 5 (1). In terms section 5-B gives the landowner another chance, because he has not exercised his right of reservation earlier u/s 5(1). The expressions "reservation" and "selection" involve the same process and indeed, to some extent, they are convertible, for one can reserve land by selection and another can select land by reservation...

If the contrary interpretation be accepted it defeats the purpose of the Act. Tenants could be inducted and they would be permitted to purchase permissible area to the grave detriment of the landowners. The entire concept of surplus area would be eroded. When asked what purpose section 5-B (1) and 5-B (2) world serve, the learned counsel said that in the case of selected area the landowner can enjoy the land through the tenant for six years. That would be an insignificant benefit for the landowners and it could not have possibly been the reason for introducing voluntary and compulsory selection of land out of the permissible area under sections (5) and 5 (2) of the Act.

The interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on section 5-B(2) will to my mind render the whole scheme of the Act nugatory and run counter to the above quoted observations. The well-established rule of interpretation is that the same word used in the same Act and much more in a sub-section of the same section cannot be given different.meaning. If the word "select" as used in section 5-B(l) is equated with "reservation", I cannot appreciate why, when the same word is used in section 5-B(2). should be differently interpreted. It, therefore, makes no difference in the matter of protection available to the landowner against proceedings by a tenant for purchase of the land whether the landowner has reserved the area for his self-cultivation or selected the same later u/s 5-B(l) or that the Collector has in the exercise of powers given to him by section 5-B(2) selected the same for his (landowner''s) self-cultivation. A tenant cannot have a right to purchase an area so selected and the landowner can eject him there from.

The last contention of the learned counsel can also not be accepted. The petitioners no doubt made applications for purchase of the land alleged to have been occupied by them as tenants and claimed to fulfill the conditions as given in section 18. These applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector and the petitioners deposited an installment of the purchase price. The decision of the Assistant Collector would be subject to that in appeal or revision and it is in the revision petition arising out of the purchase proceedings that the Financial Commissioner has passed the order dismissing their applications for purchase though directing at the same time that they could purchase land out of the surplus area after the Collector makes the selection for the landowners respondents u/s 5-B(2). This order of the Financial Commissioner is perfectly within his jurisdiction and unexceptionable. There is no limit of time laid down for the exercise of power of selection by the Collector u/s 5-B(2) and it makes no difference that some proceedings initiated by a tenant for the purchase of land u/s 18 are pending when this power of selection is exercised. Any interpretation restricting the operation of this provision of law to safeguard any alleged rights of a tenant would be adding to the plain meaning of the words as appearing in section 5-B and contrary to the well-established cannons of interpretation of statutes. The plain words of a statute must be given their ordinary meaning unrestricted by any considerations and the scheme of this provision as added by Punjab Act No. 46 of 1957 also warrants that it is the land owner alone whose rights are being considered by the Collector u/s 5-B(2). The proviso to section 5-B (2) requires that the prescribed authority shall not make the selection without giving the landowner concerned an opportunity of being heard but no such opportunity is required to be given to a tenant. This also supports the conclusion that if a tenant is occupying the land selected by the Collector u/s 5-B(2) for the self-cultivation of the landowner that tenant can be ejected being a tenant on the reserved area within the meaning of section 9(1) (i). The learned counsel has relied upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court reported as Jot Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 1960 L.L.T. 156 and Amar Singh etc. v. The State of Punjab 1967 L.L.T. 42 in support of the contention that after a tenant has complied with the order of purchase made by the appropriate authority u/s 18 and made payment in terms of the order, he must be deemed to have become owner by virtue of the provisions contained in section 18(4) (b). The facts of the above cases were quite different and the ratio decidendi of these judgments must be confined to the facts of those cases. In Jot Ram''s case, Teja was the land-owner against whom an application u/s 18 for purchase of land had been allowed by the Assistant Collector and in pursuance of the orders of the latter the tenant paid the necessary installment of purchase price. Teja later died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs and representatives wanted to contend that they had become small landowners as a consequence whereof the tenants could no longer exercise their right of purchase. It was this contention that was repelled by the Division Bench holding that advantage given by section 10-B of the Act in consequence of inheritance could not take away a vested right that had accrued in favour of a third party, namely, the tenant. There is nothing in the decision of this case which can be of any assistance to the petitioners. Amar Singh''s case was also on different facts and is of no help. There the question involved was as to the interpretation of section 10-A. The argument raised was that a transfer to a tenant made u/s 18 was hit by section 10-A(b) inasmuch as for the purpose of determing surplus area of any landowner the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector u/s 18 of the Act, whereby a part of the holding of the landowner vested absolutely in the erstwhile tenant, had to be ignored. This argument was repelled in the Bench decision and it was observed that if the clauses of section 10-A were so read the provisions of section 18 would be completely neutralized which obviously could not be the intention of the Act. This case has not the least bearing on the facts of the present one.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ petitions which stand dismissed with costs, which I assess at Rs. 150/- in each writ petition.