MUNSHI RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS, judgment will dispose of five companion letters patent appeals, Nos. 47 to 51 of 1967, instituted jointly by the five brothers. Munshi Ram, Mohn Ram. Bhagwan Dass, Bhoja Ram and Satnam Dass against five different tenants of their ioint holding, as well as LPA No. 167 of 1967 (Punj ). Bhoj Raj v. State of Punjab. In all these six appeals, there is a common question relating to the scope and interpretation of the definition of 'permissible area' in Sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1953 (hereinafter called the Act ). The five letters patent appeals Nos. 47 to 51 of 1967 directed against the judgment of sharma J. of 24th November, 1966. were admitted by a Division Bench of Chief justice and Harbans Singh J. on 23rd of March, 1967 for hearing before a Full bench, there being a submission both before the learned Single Judge and the admitting Bench that an observation of Narula J. , speaking for the Court (Dua J. and myself concurring), in the Full Bench decision of Khan Chand v State of punjab, 1966-68 Pun LR 543 = (AIR 1966 Punj 423 ). seems to overrule by implication the ratio decidendi of the Division Bench case of Nathu v. State of punjab. 1964 Lah LT 56, though it had otherwise been followed and approved. The same point was raised in L. P. A No. 167 of 1967. from the judgment of D. K. Mahajan J. of 17th March. 1967 (Punj), which was also admitted by the Bench of chief Justice and Harbans Singh J. on 5th May, 1967, and a direction was given that it should be heard with L. P. A. No. 47 of 1967 Besides, this common point, there is additionally in the five letters patent appeals of Munshi Ram and his brothers the question whether the appellants are displaced persons entitled to the concession of an enhanced permissible area under proviso (ii) to Sub-section (43)of section 2 of the Act; their father having owned lands in Pakistan and dying before the actual allotment was made in his favour?

(2.) THE facts on which there is no dispute in the two sets of cases are these. Bishan dass. father of the appellants in L. P. As Nos. 47 to 51 of 1967 owned considerable land in Pakistan. He died on 11th of April, 1948, after he had migrated to India. Before his death, Bishan Dass filed his claim under the Bast Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act. 1948. on 13th March, 1948. in respect of landed property left in Pakistan. No allotment was made til] the death of Bishan Dass and eventually the claim was verified and allotment made on 26th of August. 1949. The allotment, which was of 124 standard acres and 1/4 unit, equivalent to 441 ordinary acres, was in the name of Bishan Dass. but mutation was sanctioned in the name of his five sons jointly with defined share of 24 standard acres and 13 units in the name of each brother, being one-fifth of the entire allotted area permanent rights were granted to the sons of Bishan Dass in due course on 2nd of january, 1956 The land was in occupation of different tenants against whom the five brothers jointly initiated ejectment proceedings under the Act. on the ground that each of them was a 'small landowner' which is defined in Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act as a landowner "whose entire land in the State of Punjab does not exceed the 'permissible area' " Ram Dhan. now a respondent in L. P. A No 47 of 1967 was one of those tenants, and against him the application was filed on 9th of october. 1963. It would not be necessary for the decision of the cases to give particulars of the four ejectment applications against the other tenants giving rise to letters patent appeals (Nos. 48 to 51 of 1967 ). In each case the plea of the tenant was that the appellants not being small landowners' the application for ejectment could not be maintained. The application of the petitioners in Form K-I. prescribed by Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act. under which the tenant of a small landowner alone could be ejected, was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Hissar on 4th of April, 1964 According to this authority the share of each of the five appellants on conversion being 88 ordinary acres, the area came to exceed the limit of 'permissible area' which under Sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Act is thus defined:--

(3.) THE limit of 60 ordinary acres having been exceeded the Assistant Collector did not consider any of the five brothers to be a small landowner. The second submission of the appellants that being displaced prisons, the allotments made in their favour of 24 standard acres each fell below the limit of permissible area under clause (c) of proviso (ii) was rejected by the Assistant Collector who considered that their case fell under the Explanation which was added to the Act by Punjab Act No. 14 of 1962 on 10th July, 1962, but given retroactive effect from the date when the original Act came into force on 15th of April, 1953. The order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed in appeal by the Collector on 4th of January, 1965. in revision by the Commissioner on 26th October, 1965, and by the financial Commissioner in a further revision on 17th May, 1966. The writ petitions to this Court preferred by the applicants having been dismissed by Sharma J. on 24th of November, 1966, they have filed letters patent appeals which, as mentioned aforesaid, have been admitted for disposal hv a Full Bench.