PARMA NAND Vs. SAROOP KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pirthi Singh, respondent No. 2 in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, made an application on the 17th of August, 1960, for the purchase of land under Section 18 of the Panjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, against his landlord Parma Nand, petitioner before me, on the ground that he was in continuous occupation of the land for the stipulated period of six years.

(2.) The Assistant Collector First Grade came to the conclusion that the land in suit was held by one Balak Ram allottee on the 1st of February, 1955, who was a big landowner, and it was subsequently acquired by Parma Nand while Pirthi Singh continued to be the tenant.

(3.) The application was rejected because the Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that Pirthi Singh was himself a big landowner. It is in evidence that on the 15th of April, 1953, his aggregate holding worked out to 31 standard acres and 1-1/2 units and that no transfer was effected by him up to 1st of February, 1955. On the 12th of November, 1956, however, he alienated 35 bighas of land consequently reducing his holding to 22 standard acres. It was held by the Assistant Collector that since the applicant, i.e. Pirthi Singh was a big landowner at the commencement of the Act, he was, therefore, to be considered as a big landowner for the purposes of the assessment of the surplus area, and consequently has to be taken as a big landowner in the case. According to him, a landowner could not be declared a big landowner under Section 10-A and a small landowner under Section 18 of the Act at one and the same time. As mentioned above, he rejected the application. Pirthi Singh appealed and the Collector dismissed his appeal on the 30th of August, 1961. He also held that since Pirthi Singh was a big landowner at the commencement of the Act, therefore, he could not apply under Section 18 of the Act for the purchase of the land. The fact that Pirthi Singh had reduced his holding after the commencement of the Act, according to the learned Collector, did not affect his status of being a big landowner. Obviously, his reasoning was that the status of the landowner, whether he is big or small, has to be determined on the date the Act came into force and a person, who was a big landowner at the commencement of the Act, could not, by selling his land, become a small landowner and then claim to be entitled to make an application under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Collector felt that a person cannot be declared a small landowner for the purposes of Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and a big landowner for the purposes of Section 10-A of the Act.