HUKAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition first came up for hearing before me on July 25, 1975, when I referred it to a larger Bench, as it involved substantial question of law as to whether a landowner, whose land is exempt from surplus area under Section 19-DD of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), is to be considered as small land-owner or such land is to be considered as reserve area within the meaning of Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act. This is how it has come before us today.

(2.) MR . Ram Rang, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner is to be deemed to be a small land-owner and that land exempt under Section 19-DD is to be considered as reserve area and that the application made by him under Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act for ejectment of his tenants (respondents 5 and 6) was competent and that the Financial Commissioner, the Collector and the Assistant Collector went wrong in dismissing the same. Mr. Maluk Singh, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, concedes that under Section 19-DD of the Act where any land is granted for gallantry at any time before January 26, 1950, such lands shall not be taken into account in computing the surplus area under the Act and that a tenant on such land shall have no right of purchase under Section 18 of the Act, but urges that the gallantry-award-land is exempt only for limited purpose of Section 18 and for no other purpose and such a land-owner has to be considered as a big land-owner. The question, which requires to be settled, is whether a landowner, whose land is exempt from being declared as surplus under Section 19-DD of the Act, is to be considered as a small land-owner and his land is to be considered as reserve area within the meaning of Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act. The term 'small land-owner' is defined in Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act which is in the following terms:--

(3.) A reading of this provision shows that a land-owner, in order to succeed, has to satisfy either of the two conditions -- that the tenant is on reserved area or he is a small land-owner. As noted earlier, the petitioner had not reserved any area under the Act, as it was not required, and no land was declared as surplus with the petitioner in view of provisions of Section 19-DD of the Act. In such a situation, when no land of the petitioner is declared as surplus he is to be deemed a small landowner and his entire holding as a result fell within his permissible limit. As stated earlier, no land with the petitioner had admittedly been declared as surplus. It is implicit in Section 19-DD that such a land-owner is to be considered as a small land-owner or every purpose. A special provision as contained in Section 19-DD of the Act has been made to afford protection to all such persons, who had served the country during the war. The section clearly lays down that such a land, which is given in lien of the gallantry award, cannot be taken into account for computing the surplus area nor is a tenant on such land entitled to purchase under Section 18 of the Act. If the land-owner is to be considered as a big land-owner for other purposes as the learned counsel for respondent-tenants wants this Court to believe, then the benefits gained by him by this section would be rendered nugatory, as in that case he would not be able to get the tenants ejected. If Section 19-DD of the Act is not to be interpreted like this, then it would run counter to the very intention of the Legislature. In this view of the matter I hold that a land-owner, whose land is exempt from being included in the surplus area under Section 19-DD of the Act, is to be considered a small landowner and that the application made by him under Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act for ejectment of his tenants is competent.