JAGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An area of agricultural land belonging to Nidhan Singh who is one of the petitioners before us, was declared surplus by the Special Collector under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and the decision was affirmed on appeal by the Commissioner and later by the Financial Commissioner. The petitioners, being Nidhan Singh and his sons, challenge the legality of that decision and the main ground in support of the petition is that the rule framed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, according to which the area in question has been declared surplus, is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and is thus ultra vires. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act permits a landowner to hold no more than what the Act calls 'permissible area' and which the Act defines as "thirty standard acres and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed sixty acres, such sixty acres." The area over and above the 'permissible area' is to be declared surplus. Section 2 of the Act defines a 'standard acre' as "a measure of area convertible into ordinary acres of any class of land according to the prescribed scale with reference to the quantity of yield and quality of soil". The conversion scale was, therefore, to be prescribed by rules which have been made and rule 2 of the Rules lays down the method of such conversions. It says -

(2.) Mr. Mann relied to some extent for his argument on a decision of this Court in Waryam Singh v. The Collector (Agrarian Reforms) Sangrur, 1964 CurLJ 1(Pb.) ), but that decision does not really assist learned counsel's argument. That was a case under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules under which a Schedule similar to Annexure 'A' in this case had been framed. It so happened, however, that in the case of the Sangrur district two different and distinct qualities of land called Chahi-Niayin and Chahi-Khalis were put together and valued equally. Mahajan, J. found as a fact that Chahi-Niayin and Chahi-Khalis were two distnict and different kinds of land which varied in their yield and were at the same time differently assessed for purposes of land revenue and he, therefore, found no justification for putting the same value on these two different kinds of land and held that the Schedule to that extent was invalid. No such thing has happened in the present case and that decision, therefore is of no assistance. We are, in the circumstances unable to agree that the disputed rule and Annexure 'A' attached to the Rules are ultra vires the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.

(3.) Mr. Mann then tried to raise another matter before us in support of the petition. He said that Nidhan Singh had transferred some of the land to his sons, who are the other petitioners, and that transfer should not have been ignored because it was in fact made before the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act came into force. The finding of fact is, however, against the petitioners, on that question and I do not see how we can disturb that finding in the present proceedings.