(1.) THE appellant, all through has been craving for setting aside the orders vide which some land, which earlier came into the surplus pool, was taken out to the tenants' permissible area on the sole ground that before modifying the original order of declaration of surplus area, he was not heard in the matter. During the pendency of the writ, however, taking cue from the Full Bench judgement in Ranjit Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors., 1981 PLJ 259, he added another dimension to his case which was not raked through before any of the authorities. The plea added, during the pendency of the writ petition, was that the surplus land, which was so declared under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1953'), had since not been utilised till such time the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972'), came into force, the earlier order of declaration of surplus area would not hold the field any more and that there has to be fresh computation of his area under the provisions of the Act of 1972 to find out if there is any surplus land. It is this new dimension, added to the case, which met with a partial success before the learned Single Judge and is sought to meet in entirety in this Letters Patent Appeal filed by him under clause X of the Letters Patent. Before we may, however, notice the contentions of the learned counsel representing the appellant, in his ultimate prayer for setting aside of the orders passed by the concerned authorities and also to modify the order passed by the learned single Judge, it shall be useful to give backdrop of the events culminating into filing of present appeal.
(2.) APPELLANT Hari Chand was a big landowner. He owned land in more than one village and for that reason his case for declaration of surplus area under the Act of 1953 came before a Special Collector, Punjab, who, vide order dated May 5, 1961, held that the landowner was entitled to permissible area of 60 ordinary acres or 30 standard acres which had since been selected by him in villages Batoli, Siri Pindian, Sathwan, Raoli and Gawal Chak Shingaru. After giving details of this permissible area, it was further stated by the Special Collector that the area to the extent of 209 ordinary acres or 0-11 and half standard acres in village Sathwan was under orchard since 1952-53 and that land measuring 573 ordinary acres or 4-3 and half standard acres in village Bela Lodhar Chak was with the tenants since the year 1952-53. It was further observed by the Special Collector that the landowner had 178.38 ordinary acres or 50.1-1/4 standard acres surplus in nine different villages. It is this area which was declared to be surplus. Aggrieved, the tenants who were old ones, i.e., having come into possession before passing of the Act of 1953, made an application for review on August 3, 1961 and stated that they were old tenants settled on the land belonging to Hari Chand and that the Circle Revenue Officer had reported that land to the extent of 17-8 and half standard acres in village Ban Karanpur was with the tenants since 1952-53 and, therefore, that land could not be included in the surplus area and had to be held as tenants' permissible area under the provisions of Act of 1953. The Special Collector, after examining the report of verification, found the plea of tenants to be correct and, thus, area to the extent of 17-8 and half standard acres in village Ban Karanpur, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, was excluded from the surplus area of Hari Chand. Details of the said area have since been given in order dated October 26, 1961, Annexure P-2. Aggrieved by this order, Annexure P-2, Hari Chand, filed an appeal after a period of nine years before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, by only pleading that before the impugned order was passed, he was not issued any notice. The plea raised by his was rejected. The learned Commissioner observed that there was no change in the permissible area of the landlord which had since already been declared. Only that part of the area which was previously declared as surplus was declared to be tenants' permissible area and the surplus area was accordingly reduced. This order could not have adversely affected the rights of the landowner inasmuch as if the area in dispute had remained surplus area, the landowner would still have no right to choose his tenants and the area would be available for resettlement of tenants by the State. Insofar as landowner is concerned, it made no difference whether the tenants in whose favour the permissible area had been determined, remained his tenants or tenants inducted by the State. Another plea which was quite insignificant and that was raised by the appellant herein, that since the area in question had been declared surplus, the tenants had been able to purchase it under Section 18 of the Act and in that way it affected his rights, was also repelled by observing that Section 18 of the Act which entitled the tenants to purchase the land, did not pertain only to surplus area. An application under Section 18 for purchase could be made with regard to land which was not a permissible area. In other words, an application for purchase could be made even with regard to tenants permissible area. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who too rejected the only plea of the appellant, noted above. The learned Financial Commissioner observed as follows :-
(3.) NO doubt, the plea of non-hearing before taking out of surplus pool the tenants permissible area, was not given up. All these matters, thus, came to be discussed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated February 1, 1985. The plea of non-hearing was negated by the learned Single Judge on parity of reasons given by the concerned authorities, i.e., the Special Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. The law laid down in Ranjit Ram's case (supra) was presumed to be applicable to the facts of this case. Insofar was appellant is concerned, he had only stated that application for purchase by the tenants was allowed before the appointed date. The respondent-tenants, however, in their pleadings came up with better details regarding time when orders permitting purchase under Section 18 were passed by the concerned authorities. Going by the pleadings of the parties, learned Single Judge observed that the applications for purchase made by the respondents 4 to 17 and 24 to 34 had been allowed by the competent authority before 24th January, 1971, i.e., the date of enforcement of the Land Reforms Act and that they had already deposited the purchase price of the land and had become owners thereof. The landowner, therefore, had been divested of the ownership of surplus land which had been purchased by respondents 4 to 17 and 24 to 34. Insofar as respondents 18 to 23 were concerned, they had filed applications under Section 18 of the Act of 1953 which were stated to be pending on the appointed date and the landowner had not been divested of the ownership of the land occupied by the said tenants. It was further observed that with regard to this land, i.e. the land occupied by respondents 18 to 23, Full Bench decision in Ranjit Ram's case was applicable. On the basis of the findings, as detailed above, writ petition was dismissed qua respondents 4 to 17 and 24 to 34 but was allowed against respondents 18 to 23. It is against this part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which writ against respondents 4 to 17 and 24 to 34 has been dismissed, that the present appeal has been filed.