JAS RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of three connected writ petitions Nos. 173 -175 of 1966 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution They have been filed by Jas Ram, Neki and Gopal, the three tenants of Siri Chand and are directed against the order dated 1st of January, 1966 passed by Mr A. L. Fletcher, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 1.

(2.) SIRI Chand, respondent No. 6 is a displaced person from Pakistan and he was allotted 52 standard acres and 2 1/2 units of land, which is equivalent to 189 ordinary acres, in village Nagpur, tehsil Fatehbad, District Hissar, before 1953. On 7th of February, 1953 the allotment with respect to 5 standard acres and 11 1/2 units was cancelled and instead he was allotted an orchard, measuring roughly 4 ordinary acres and 10 marlas according to the landlord and 5 standard acres and 11 units according to the tenants, in village Kanganpur, tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar in 1957. He transferred 3/4th share of his entire holding to his three sons and kept the remaining l/4th with him In May, 1963 these three tenants applied to the Assistant Collector for the purchase of the land under their tenancy under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act). On 14th of May 1964, their applications were rejected on the ground that respondent No. 6 was a 'small landowner'. During the pendency of these applications, in January, 1964, respondent No. 6 applied to the Assistant Collector for the ejectment of these tenants under sections 9 and 14 of the Act. These applications were accepted by the Assistant Collector. The tenants then filed a appeals before the Collector against both the decisions of the Assistant Collector. These appeals were dismissed on 26th of October, 1964 and the tenants than filed revisions to the Commissioner which too were rejected on 20th July, 1965. Thereafter further revisions to the Financial Commissioner were also dismissed by means of the impugned order. That led to the filing of these three writ petitions by the three tenants.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners then contended that under proviso (ii) (b) to section 2 (3), the permissible area' of a displaced person, who has been allotted land in excess of 30 standard acres but less than 50 standard acres, would be subject to the upper limit of 100 ordinary acres, because this limit was fixed under proviso (ii) (a) to section 2 (3), even in the case of those displaced persons who had been allotted land in excess of 50 standard acres. The learned Financial Commissioner and the other officers under him, have however, taken the view that under proviso (ii) (b) the permissible area is the area actually allotted to the displaced person, even if on conversion into ordinary acres this area exceeds 100 ordinary acres. There is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel as well In the instant case, if the area under the orchard is not to be taken into account in computing the permissible area of respondent No. 6, as I have already held above then the allotment in his favour would be in excess of 30 standard acres but less than 50 standard acres, In that case proviso (ii) (b) will apply to him and the permissible area under the same would, in his case, be his allotted area. In the first place, in my opinion, the wordings of proviso (ii) (b) are quite clear and unambiguous and not capable of any other interpretation except this that for a displaced person who has been allotted land in excess of 30 but less than 50 standard acres, the permissible area shall be equal to his allotted area. Secondly, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that an outside limit of 100 ordinary acres has been fixed under proviso (ii) (a). The permissible area under this proviso has been laid down as 50 standard acres. If on conversion they exceed 100 ordinary acres, the same would be the permissible area and not 100 ordinary acres as contended by the learned counsel. This point was recently settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Khan Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1966 (68) P.L.R. 543 (F.B ), (C.W. No. 396 of 1963) derided on 24th March, 19t'6, where it was held that the permissible area of such allottees was 50 standard acres irrespective of the fact that on conversion the area would exceed 100 ordinary acres.