RANJIT RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In L. P. A. Nos. 479 of 1978 and 221 of 1980, and C. W. P. Nos. 264 of 1978, 3746 of 1979 and 2172 of 1980, which have been referred to Full Bench the following common question of law arise for decision.

(2.) In all these cases, the land of the landowners had been declared surplus before the coming into force of the Reforms Act. but the landowners had not yet been divested of the ownership as they were not dispossessed under the provision of the Pepsu Law in one case and tenants were not settled after the surplus area was declared under the Punjab Law in the other cases. The landowners who have major sons have claimed on behalf of them that each one of the major sons of the landowners is entitled to permissible area in view of the provision of Section 4 and 5 and other provision of the Reforms Act. It is not disputed that the landowners were not divested of the ownership of the land before the Reforms Act was enforced. It may be pointed out that the Reforms Act was enforced on 2-4-1973 and the appointed day under the Act has been fixed to be 24th January, 1971 with a view to appreciate the points involved in the cases, it would be necessary to make mention of the salient features of the Punjab Law and the Pepsu Law. Under the Punjab Law, every landowner whether minor or major, was entitled to his or her permissible area. The land which was found to be beyond the permissible area of the landowner was to be declared surplus. However, the landowner did not cease to be the owner of the surplus land till the same was purchased by the tenants in accordance with he provision of Section 18 of the Punjab Law, he landowner is divested of the ownership of the land on the payment of the first installment by the tenant to the landowner in pursuance of the order passed under Section 18 of the Punjab Law. Till then the landowner continues to be the owner of the land even though declared surplus. It would thus be seen that under the provision of the Punjab Law a landowner could continue to be the owner of the land beyond the permissible area but he was entitled to the permissible area for his self-cultivation. Under the Pepsu law, the position was different. Each landowner was entitled to the permissible area as defined under the said law. The area which was beyond the permissible area was declared surplus and when the possession of the surplus land was taken over by the State Government, the landowner is divested of the ownership of the land and the same vests in the State Government. The land so declared surplus and taken possession of, can be utilised by the State Government for resettlement of the tenant by framing utilisation scheme. It would thus be seen that under the Pepsu law a landowner could not remain owner of the land more than the permissible area and the land vested in the State Government from the date the possession of the same was taken over by the State. It may further be noticed that under the Punjab Law and Pepsu Law, each landowner was considered as a separate unit and the concept of family was absent. Thus if a minor son of a landowner owned land in his own right, he was entitled to the permissible area, even though he was a member of the family.

(3.) The concept of the compulsory acquisition of land declared surplus as enshrined in the Pepsu Law has been brought in, in the Reforms Act, No person, as defined in the Reforms Act, can remain owner of the land more than the permissible area. The area so declared surplus under the Reforms Act shall vest in the State Government when possession is taken over by it under Section 9 of the Reforms Act, but as regards the unit of permissible area there is a considerable departure in the Reforms Act. The method of valuation has also undergone a great change.