GAURI SHANKER Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by a landowner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality of the proceedings taken against him by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the Act). The Special Collector respondent No. 2 had declared 12.65 ordinary acres equal to 4.35 standard acres of the petitioner's land as surplus area and had refused to exclude certain lands sold away by the petitioner in the year 1965 from his permissible area. This order had been maintained on appeal by the Additional Commissioner and a revision petition filed by the petitioner had also been rejected by the Financial Commissioner respondent No. 1 on the 19th January, 1970 vide his order annexure 'C'. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are old tenants of the petitioner and have been impleaded as such.

(2.) The Collector's order (Annexure 'A') shows that the petitioner owned land in four different villages and that his total holding had an area of 288.91 ordinary acres. On conversion this land was found to have an area of 91.18 standard acres. A small fraction of this area had been acquired by the Government and had, therefore, been excluded from consideration. The petitioner had succeeded to all this land on the death of his father in 1954. He was a minor at the time and no reservation of his permissible area or selection had been made on his behalf under Section 5 or 5-B(1) of the Act within the time allowed by law. It has, therefore, been left to the Collector to make a selection of his permissible area under Section 5-B(2). As the petitioner owned land in more than one patwar circle he had also to furnish within six months of the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Act, 1957, a declaration supported by an affidavit in compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A. His failure to furnish these documents had also exposed him to the risk of incurring penalty under Section 5-C of the Act.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Sarin is that 44 kanals and 8 marlas of land which the petitioner had sold in the year 1965 could not have been included in his permissible area and that this land should have been included in the surplus area declared by the Special Collector. In this connection he has relied on two Division Bench rulings of this Court in Mota Singh V. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, and others, 1968 PunLJ 338, and Bhool Chand and others V. The State of Punjab and others, 1968 PunLJ 360. Both these rulings had been considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Udmi V. The Haryana State and others, 1970 PunLJ 531. These rulings relied upon by Shri Sarin were, however, distinguished with the following observations :-