RANIAN Vs. SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The only question that has been agitated is, that an award for distinguished services does not mean an award for gallantry. The burden of the argument is that an award for distinguished services is not an award for gallantry.

(2.) THE facts are simple. The respondent is a retired military officer. He served in the Indian Army from the year of 1904 to 1932. For his services during the First world War from 1914 to 1919, he was granted two squares of land in the District of Montgomery in 1920 A. D. The District of Montgomery is not in West Pakistan as a result of partition in India in 1947. After the partition, the respondent migrated to what is now India. In lieu of those two squares of land, he was allotted 59 acres and 12 units of land in Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. During the consolidation of holdings, the area increased to 70 standard acres and 31/4 units. In view of the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act No. 10 of 1953), the respondent's permissible area could not exceed 50 standard acres. Thus, an area measuring 20 standard and 31/4 units was declared surplus by the Collector, Ludhiana, by his order dated 2-11-1959. There is no mention in this order that any exemption was claimed by the petitioner under section 19-D of the Act. According to Section 19-D, the Security of Land Tenures act does not apply to lands granted to any members of the Armed Forces of the union of gallantry. Like a straightforward army officer, the respondent voluntarily offered to surrender 20 standard acres and 31/4 units of his land as surplus. Section 19-D fell for consideration in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 1966 Punj LJ 105, and it was observed therein :-

(3.) IN view of these provisions, the respondent made an application dated 5th november, 1967 to the Collector, Ludhiana, claiming exemption from the provisions of the Act. His case before the Collector was that two squares of land granted to him were for gallantry in the First World War and, therefore, this land fell outside the purview of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and no part of the land of the petitioner could be declared surplus. The Collector dismissed the petitioner's application on the short ground that when originally his land was declared surplus no such claim was made. The further appeal and a revision by the respondent also failed. The respondent then took up the matter to the Financial Commissioner in revision. The Financial Commissioner also dismissed the petition. However, the Financial commissioner took the view that there was nothing on the record to show that the two squares of land of the petitioner had been granted for gallantry. He ruled that the "distinguished services of a soldier fighting on the active front were something different from or independent of that soldier's deed of heroism or gallantry. " It was further held that the amendment of the Act in 1967/1968 did not improve the position of the petitioner's case.