Sabu Singh and another vs Ram Lal alias Padam Lal and others

C.G. Suri, J.—This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a tenant whose application u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as ''the Act'') for purchase of land in his possession has been dismissed by the Revenue Officers of the State of Haryana, Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 on the ground that the petitioner''s landlord Shri Ram Lal, Respondent No. 1 was a small landowner.

Respondent No. 1 is a displaced person from West Pakistan and in the year 1949 had been allotted 66 Standard Acres and 11 Units of evacuee land by the Rehabilitation Authorities. 16 Standard Acres and 12 1/2 Units out of this land were cancelled as excess allotment in the year 1937 with the result that the petitioner was left with the little less than 50 Standard Acres of land which on conversion equalled 158 ordinary Acres. This was less than ''the permissible area'' in view of the definition of that expression in Clause (b) of Proviso (ii) to Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act. The way this clause, is drafted, nothing may seem to turn on the date on which the allotment of land was made to a displaced person. Respondent No. 1 who was a displaced person, has, therefore, to be treated as having been allotted land which was in excess of 30 Standard Acres but less than 50 Standard Acres. In this case, the permissible area is to be taken to be equal to the area ultimately allotted to him after a part cancellation of the allotment.

A tenant''s purchase application can succeed only where his landlord can be described to be a landowner other than a small landowner and where the land sought to be purchased is not included in the reserved or the permissible area of the landowner.

The main contention of Shri Kang, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that his landlord''s lands became canal irrigated in 1952 and that its value in standard Acres had gone up. Another contention is that original allotment made to his landlord in 1949 was of an area which was in excess of the permissible limits. The third contention was that his landowner''s holding even after the part cancellation of the allotment was in respect of an area of about 158 actual acres and that if this area in actual acres is taken into account, it would be in excess even of the permissible limits prescribed for a displaced person All these three contentions have been fully met and negatived in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Khan Chand v. State of Punjab (1966) 68 P.L.R. 543, and a Supreme Court decision in Bhagwan Das Vs. The State of Punjab, A single Bench decision of this Court in Mani Ram and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana ILR 1970 P&H. 400, has also been relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, Shri Sarin, in this connection.

It was held by the Full Bench in Khan Chand''s case that "if the allotment of a displaced person is in standard acres the permissible urea for him will be calculated in standard acres and if his allotment is In ordinary acres the permissible area for him would be calculated in ordinary acres. The permissible area of a displaced allotted who was allotted more than fifty standard acres would be fifty standard acres irrespective of the fact that on conversion the area could exceed 100 ordinary acres. In case of an allotted of area more than 100 ordinary acres the permissible area would be 100 ordinary acres irrespective of the fact that on conversion it works out to less than fifty standard acres. The permissible area of a displaced allotted of 30 to 50 standard acres is the area of his allotment, even it his holding in ordinary acres is more than 100."

The following observations from Mani Ram''s case can also be reproduced with advantage in this connection:

Held that from the definition of "surplus area" in Section 2(3) of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. it is clear that in the case of a displaced person 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. The object of giving higher area of land to displaced persons as compared to the local landowners was that displaced landowners had suffered heavily on account of partition and a cut had already been applied to their holdings when they were allotted land in India in lieu of the lands left in Pakistan and for this reason the area allotted should not be further reduced. The intention was that if any landowner had been allotted an area of less than fifty standard acres, he should be allowed to retain area and the same should not be curtailed under any provision of the Act. It is no where provided in the Act that the land of a displaced person will be evaluated under, the Act in cases where the original allotment was of less than fifty standard acres. In the absence of such a provision in the Act, the land of the displaced person who was allotted less than fifty standard acres in area is not to be re-evaluated on coming into force of the Act for purposes of declaring any part of it as surplus in his hands.

As regards the subsequent improvements in the quality of the land because of the availability of the facility of canal irrigation, the following observations of the Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass''s case may appear very pertinent:

The question is whether the appellant is a small landowner within the meaning of Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act... If he is a small landowner at the commencement of the Act. his status is not altered by reason of improvements in the value of his land or re-allotment of land on compulsory consolidation of holdings.

In an unreported decision in Surja v. Financial Commissioner of Punjab and others (Civil Writ No. 486 of 1961). the Punjab High Court held that the status of the landowner for the purposes of an application u/s 14-A of the Act should be determined by evaluating his land on the date of the application. On the basis of this ruling, the improvements in the land subsequent to the con mencement of the Act could not be ignored; but the legislature considered that this decision had the effect of defeating the purpose of the Act. It is well known that with a view to get rid of this decision, the legislature inserted Section 19 F(b) in the Act by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 (Punjab Act No. 14 of 1962). The object of this amendment will appear from the following passage in the statements of Objects and Reasons published in the Punjab Gazette (Extr. dated April 27, 1962.

Some of the recent judicial pronouncements have the effect of defeating the objectives with which the Punjab Security of Land Tenares Act, 1953 was enacted and amended from time to time... Under the Scheme of the present Act a specific period was allowed for riling of reservations by the landowners the object of which was to find out whether a person was a small landowner or hot. Once that was found the intention was that such a person should continue to be treated as such for the purposes of the Act so long as he did not require more lands. In other words, his status was not to be altered on account of improvements made on the land or re-allotment of land during consolidation. However, the High Court took a different view in Civil Writ No. 486 of 1961 (Surja v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others... Accordingly clauses 3, 6 and 7 of the bill seek to neutralise the effect of the aforesaid decisions.

* * *

There is no scope for evaluating the subsequent improvements in the land due to consolidation operations or otherwise. The appellant did not acquire any land after the commencement of the Act. His status as a small landowner was not altered by reason of subsequent improvements or re-allotments of land on compulsory consolidation of holdings. On the date of the application for eviction, he therefore, continued to be a small landowner The High Court was in error in holding that the status of the appellant should be determined by evaluating his land in terms of standard acres on the date of the application for eviction.

In view of the ruling cited above, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be repelled.

The Civil Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.