CHAND SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS, AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants, who had been ordered to be evicted under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 ( for short, 'the 1953 Act') from lands measuring 35 standard acres and 2 units in various khasra numbers in Village Jandwala Hanwanta, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, are the writ petitioners before this Court. They assail the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 10.11.1987 (Annexure P-5) rejecting the order of the Commissioner and restoring the order of the Collector, directing eviction. The eviction proceedings were in relation to the properties held by the big landowner Buta Singh and after his death, the proceedings were being prosecuted by his sons, Waryam Singh and Avtar Singh. He held properties in Sakkanwali as well as in Jandwala Hanwanta. The contest revolved around the entitlement of the landowner to make his reservation of his permissible area and to seek for ejectment within the permissible area. The landlord's contention was that the property in Sakkanwali had been held in possession by his sons Waryam Singh and Avtar Singh and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to make his reservation in respect of the property in Jandwala Hanwanta. The tenants' contention was that the so-called tenancy created in favour of the landlord's sons was a make-believe affair and the property held by them must be treated as being in the personal cultivation of the landlord. All the authorities consecutively held that the lease in favour of the sons was itself not valid. However, the Financial Commissioner held that the tenants had come into possession of the property only in the year 1957 and on the date of the coming into force of the Act in the year 1953, Buta Singh himself was in possession of the property in Jandwala Hanwanta. The Financial Commissioner held that the Commissioner was in error in allowing for the tenants to make the reservation first in respect of the permissible area, when it should have been otherwise, namely of allowing for the landlord to make his reservation first and if in the year 1953 when the Act came into force, the property in Jandwala Hanwanta had been in possession of the landlord himself, he was entitled to make his reservation in respect of the said property. The Financial Commissioner also held that the tenants were unable to cite any provision or authority which would restrict the landlord from selecting the land in tenancy within the landlord's permissible area.

(2.) On a point of fact, it is brought through records that at the relevant time in the year 1953, the revenue entries clearly showed that the landlord himself had been in possession of the property in Jandwala Hanwanta. The properties in Sakkanwali was also in possession of the landlord, although it was contended by him that they had been granted in lease to his sons.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants would contend that the Financial Commissioner was in error in holding that the landlord could make any reservation of the property in the manner he pleased. The learned could would refer to the provisions of Section 5-B of the Act which allowed for the landlord to make the reservation within a period of six months within the time when the Amending Act came and if such a reservation had not been made, the authorities were entitled to make such a reservation and treat the property even in excess of the permissible area as available for the tenants' permissible area. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties made rival contentions, one disputing the other's assertions. The tenants would contend that the landlord had originally made a reservation of the property in Sakkanwali, while the landlord would contend that he had made reservation of the property only in Jandwala Hanwanta. Whatever was the truth, the question that has to be raised is, whether the landlord could validly make his reservation of the property, without reference to the property being in possession of the tenants at the time when he was making the reservation.