AMOLAK RAJ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20th of July, 1963, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirsa, exercising powers of Collector, declared an area of 58.96 standard acres as surplus area of the petitioner on the basis that his permissible area was 100 ordinary acres, which, when converted into standard acres, came to 33.26. Except for a slight modification made by the Commissioner with regard to Khasra No. 416, this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer has been upheld even by the Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 31st of March, 1965 (Annexure D to the petition). For assailing the validity of this order, the petitioner Amolak Raj has contended that -

(2.) In support of the first contention, reliance is placed upon the recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Khan Chand V. The State of Punjab and others, 1966 PunLJ 138 wherein it was held that if the allotment of a displaced person is in standard acres, the permissible area for him will be calculated in standard acres and if his allotment is in ordinary acres, the permissible area for him would be calculated in ordinary acres. It was further held in that case that where the allotment is in terms of standard acres, the permissible area for the displaced allottee would be 50 standard acres irrespective of the fact that on conversion the area would exceed 100 ordinary acres. It is not disputed before me that the allotment made to the petitioner was in terms of standard acres. Accordingly, the respondent-authorities were wrong in holding that the permissible area in his case was 100 ordinary acres and not 50 standard acres.

(3.) On the second question, Mr. H.L. Sarin has cited Nemi Chand Jain V. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, 1963 PunLJ 137 in which a Division Bench of this Court ruled that banjar jadid or banjar qadim land cannot be taken into account while considering the surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, so far as ghair mumkin land is concerned, reliance is placed on another Full Bench decision of this court in Rajinder Prashad and another V. The Punjab State and others, 1966 PunLJ 28 . It was ruled in that case that according to the definition of "land" given in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, read with Section 4(1) of the Punjab Tenancy 1887, the land, which was recorded as "ghair mumkin land" in the revenue records, but, is not occupied or let for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, is not land within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The respondent-authorities seem to have accepted this view, but they refused to exclude the ghair mumkin or banjar qadim land from consideration being of the opinion that it was for the landowner concerned to prove that such land was not occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, etc. at the relevant time. This view is not consistent with the Full Bench decision in Rajinder Prashad's case, as their Lordships have further observed in that case :-