TULSAN Vs. GURBAKHSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment, dated December 11, 1973, of a learned Single Judge, whereby the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, dated March 27, 1968, and the orders of the authorities subordinate thereto were quashed.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Gurbakhsh Singh (since deceased) on April 15, 1953, that is on the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953) (hereinafter called the Act) held land in three villages, namely Ratta Khera and Gendar, both in district Ferozepore, and siswal in district Hissar. The area held by him was much more than the permissible limit and according to respondent No 1 the whole of it was under the tenants. No reservation was made by him under Section 5 of the Act within the specified period. Consequently in the year 1958, he selected land measuring 30 standard acres, equivalent to 89 ordinary acres, out of the land situate in village Siswal as his permissible area.

(3.) "Permissible area" as defined in clause (3) of Section 2 of the Act means thirty standard acres, and where such thirty standard acres, on being converted into ordinary acres, exceed sixty acres, such sixty acres. There prevailed some confusion as to whether a person was entitled to retain land measuring 30 standard acres even when converted into ordinary acres it exceeded 60 ordinary acres. The question was settled by a Division Bench of this court in Nathu v. The State of Punjab,1964 43 LLT 56, which was later on approved by a Full Bench in Munshi Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1967 69 PunLR 913. According to this decision the landowner was entitled only to retain 60 ordinary acres in case 30 standard acres when converted into ordinary acres exceeded 60 acres. Consequently, when the matter of surplus area of respondent No. 1 came up for consideration before the Special Collector, he asked him to select 60 ordinary acres out of the 89 ordinary acres selected by him. Respondent No. 1 accordingly made selection of 60 ordinary acres including fields No. 187-M/3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15, the land under the cultivation of tenant Gulla (since deceased and now represented by the appellants). In the final order passed by the Special Collector, however, the said area which is the land in dispute was also shown as the permissible area of the tenant.