DHAPAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a land-owner and seeks to impugn the orders of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 granting a purchase application of the tenant, Mam Chand, respondent No. 5, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

(2.) The main question that arises for decision in this case is whether the petitioner is a big or a small landowner. This would depend on whether Banjar and Ghair Mumkin lands are or are not excluded from her holding for the purpose of determination of the surplus area. The Assistant Collector, respondent No. 4, had allowed the tenant's purchase application after taking into account those areas which were entered in the revenue records as Banjar and Ghair Mumkin. Appeal filed by the land-owner had been dismissed by the Collector, respondent No. 3 on 31st August, 1963. The petitioner had filed a revision which was pending before the Commissioner when the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Nemi Chand Jain v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, 1964 66 PunLR 278, was given. The Commissioner, respondent No. 2 relying on this ruling recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the land-owner's revision petition should be accepted because her holding amounted to only 28 standard acres and 4-1/2 units, if Banjar and Ghair Mumkin lands were excluded from consideration. According to the Commissioner, the petitioner's holding was less than the permissible area and there was no question of the tenant's purchase application being allowed.

(3.) The Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1, turned down this recommendation by his impugned order dated 7th May, 1965 (Annexure 'C'). The reason given by him was that respondent No. 2 had overlooked the fact that the Banjar and Ghair Mumkin lands can be excluded while evaluating the holding of a land-owner only if it is established that such area was not being used for any purpose subservient to agriculture at the crucial time. Inspite of the entries in the revenue records, the Financial Commissioner was of the view that there was nothing to suggest that Banjar and Ghair Mumkin areas were not in fact being used for agricultural purposes or purposes sub-servient thereto.