CHETAN DASS Vs. MARU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is the extent of the permissible area of a displaced land -owner who whilst biding allotted land in his own right, further acquires an additional area of land by way of inheritance -is the primary question which has been debated in these two connected appeals Nos. 270 and 27l under Manse 10 of tie Letters Patent. The facts (which are not in dispute) and the points of law are identical and the learned counsel are agreed that this judgment will govern both these appeals.

(2.) A brief reference to the facts in LPA. No. 270 will suffice. Chetan Das, appellant, was allotted one Standard Acre and 14 3/4 Units of evacuee land as a displaced person in his own right in 1949 in village Kuleri, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar. The appellant's father Suba Mal was also allotted 70 Standard Acres and 14 1/4 Units as a displaced person in village Mirpur. Suba Mal died on the 16th December, 1949, and after his death the allotment above -said was inherited by the appellant and his brother in equal shares. The total holdings of the appellant, therefore, came to 3 Standard Acres and 5 -7/8 Units of land. The Respondents who are tenants had been cultivating the land which came under the ownership of the appellant for more than 8 years and they moved applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for purchasing the same. These applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector, Fatehabad, by his order dated the 16th September, 1966. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Collector which, however, was rejected on the 7th December. 1966 A revision against this rejection met a similar fate before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, by his order dated the 10th May, 967. On a further revision having been filed, however, the appellant succeeded and the Financial Commissioner by his order dated the 21st November, 1967 set aside the orders of the revenue authorities below aid dismissed the applications of the tenants on the finding that the area of land held by the appellant fell within his permissible area and he was consequently a small land -owner. This order of the Financial Commissioner was impugned by way of the writ petition which stands allowed by the learned Single Judge who has hold that in view of the Explanation to Sub -section (3) of Section 2 of the Act, the appellant could not take the benefit of the provisions of proviso (ii) thereof in respect of the area he had inherited from his father Suba Mal and consequently he was not a small land -owner under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) THE crux of the issue in the present case is whether the appellant can be deemed to be a displaced person who has been allotted land under Section 2 (3) (ii) of the Act in respect of the area of land inherited by him from his father Suba Mal. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is first necessary to set down the relevant provisions of the Act and those of the Displaced Persons (Resettlement) Act, 1949, on which learned counsel have placed reliance: