BARI DOAB BANK LTD Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Bari Doab Bank Limited, Hoshiarpur, owned 129.57 ordinary acres of agricultural land situate in the District of Hoshiarpur. Out of the said area the Special Collector, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated October 13, 1961 declared 65 standard acres and 4-1/2 units of land as surplus area according to the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The appellant challenged that order in appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that more than 65 standard acres area which was banjar jadid, banjar kadim and gair mumkin in Rabi 1953 had been taken into consideration by the Special Collector while assessing its permissible area. The Commissioner upheld this plea, set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case for fresh assessment of the surplus area vide order dated June 23, 1962. The order of the Commissioner, however, was reversed on appeal by the Financial Commissioner and that of the Collector was restored vide judgment dated October 26, 1963. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed the present suit on December 12, 1964 for the declaration that the order of the Revenue Authorities are void and for injunction restraining the Collector from utililising the area declared to be surplus.

(2.) The suit was contested by the State on various grounds, but only two grounds which survive for decision in this appeal are as to whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit and whether the suit was barred by time. The trial Court decided both these issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The findings of the trial Court having been confirmed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment dated April 16, 1969, the appellant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I find that the view taken by both the Courts below is unexceptionable and this appeal has consequently no merit. It is not disputed that the land which was banjar jadid, banjar kadim and gair mumkin at the time of the enforcement of the said Act had been brought under cultivation when the surplus area case was decided by the Special Collector. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on a Supreme Court decision in Bhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab and others, 1966 PunLJ 110, argued that for the purpose of determining the status of the landowner and evaluating his land at any time under the Act, the land owned by him immediately before the commencement of the Act must always be evaluated in terms of standard acres as if the evaluation was being made on the date of such commencement and that there is no scope for evaluating the subsequent improvements in the land. He consequently contended that the Collector and the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to determine the surplus area by taking into consideration the nature of the land as it obtained in the year 1961 and their orders were without jurisdiction. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. The impugned orders on the said ground at best can be said to be against law and not without jurisdiction. That apart I am of the view that when the banjar jadid, banjar kadim and gair mumkin land was not at all within the meaning of the said Act, it cannot be said that the appellant owned that land on the date of the commencement of the Act or that by bringing it under cultivation only an improvement was made. I am further of the view that it would be a case of acquisition of land within the meaning of Section 19(b) after the commencement of the Act and has to be taken into consideration while determining the surplus area of the appellant. The order of the Revenue Authority, therefore, was not only within jurisdiction, but was also perfectly valid. In this view of the matter the Civil Court obviously would have no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.