Rawat vs State of Punjab and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This is a tenant''s petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order rejecting his application u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, for purchase of the land forming subject-matter of its tenancy. The landlords are Tehl Ram and Karam Chand, respondents 3 and 4. They are displaced persons and were allotted land measuring 50.55 Standard Acres equal to 133.61 Ordinary Acres. An area measuring 2.81 ordinary Acres equal to 1.83 Standard Acres was acquired by the Government on the 25th April, 1959. Accordingly, they were left with 48.72 Standard Acres equal to 130.80 Ordinary Acres. Rewat, the petitioner-tenant, filed the present petition on the 12th of October, 1960 for the purchase of land forming the subject-matter of this tenancy u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This application was rejected on the 19th July, 1961 on the short ground that the respondents 3 and 4 were small land owners and further that the areas sought to be purchased formed part of their reserved area. An appeal to the Collector also failed and so also a revision to the Commissioner as well as to the Financial Commissioner. Hence the present petition.

The contention of Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlords are big landowers and, therefore, the revenue authorities were in error in rejecting the application u/s 18 of the Act. In the first place, the decision by the authorities that respondents 3 and 4 are small landowners is a decision on a question of fact and, therefore, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the second place, there is no basis for the contention that respondents 3 and 4 are big landowners. In order to show that the respondent landlords are big land-owners, it is urged that inasmuch as 130.80 Ordinary Acres is the holding of the respondents 3 and 4 and it being more than 100 Ordinary Acres, the respondents are big land-owners. The definition of ''Small landowner is set out m section 2(2) of the Act and is in these terms:

Small land-owner means a land-owner whose entire land in the State of Punjab does not exceed the ''permissible area''.

Explanation.-In computing the area held by any particular land-owner the entire land owned by him in the State of Punjab, as entered in the record of rights shall be taken into account, and if he is a joint owner, only his share be taken into account." The definition of ''Permissible Area; is to be found in section 2(3) of the Act and the relevant part of the definition is in these terms:

''Permissible area'' in relation to a land-owner 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-

(i) no area under an orchard at the commencement of this Act, shall be taken into account in computing the permissible area;

(ii) for a displaced person-

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.

Section 18 of the Act gives a right of purchase to the tenant of the land forming subject-matter of his tenancy, provided he is a tenant of a land-owner other than a small-land owner. It also provides that he can only purchase the land which is not included in the reserved area of the landowner. The combined reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that the respondents 3 and 4 are not big land-owners. I also do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the decision in Nathu v. The State of Punjab, 1964 L. L. T. 56 supports his contention. The measure of ownership is fixed in Standard Acres and it is evident that in Standard Acres, the petitioners hold only 48.72 Standard Acres that is, less than the ''permissible area'', which is 50 Standard - Acres. It is only when the calculation has not been made in Standard Acres, that a reference has to be made to the Ordinary Acres, because, in that case, the permissible area is 100 Ordinary Acres. This is precisely what was held by the Division Bench. To the same effect is the decision of Shamsher Bahadur J. in Harcharan Singh v. The Punjab State 1963 Curr. L. J. 270.

The petition also fails on another ground. It has been found by the revenue authorities that the petitioner could not be allowed to purchase the land u/s 18 of the Act, because the same forms part of the reserved area of the land owners. The finding that the land sought to be purchased forms part of the reserved area is again a finding of fact and cannot be disturbed in these proceedings. Moreover, this finding was not challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate authorities and so also he cannot be allowed to question the same in the present proceedings.

In addition to what has been stated above it may be mentioned that the land owners are two and they would be deemed to hold the land in equal shares; and even if the learned counsel''s argument is accepted that 130.80 Ordinary Acres are more than the ''permissible area'' and they are a measure to determine the rights of the parties u/s 18 of the Act, even then each of the land owner does not hold more than 100 Ordinary Acres.

In any view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition, the same fails and is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs.