DALIP SINGH Vs. DARA SINGH ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A government grant of land of 55 acres was made to Subedar Bishan Singh under the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Act,, 1912 (Punjab Act, 5 of 1912). He died sometime before the partition of the country in 1947. The land was inherited by his three sons, Dalip Singh appellant, and Ajit Singh and Jhojar Singh. Ajit Singh is dead and is represented in these appeals by his widow Nichhattar Kaur respondent. The Sanad given to Subedar Bishan Singh by the Government has not been available, but the terms and conditions of the grant are given in Punjab Government. Notification No. 360-1574-15378 of December 15, 1923, published in the Punjab Gazette of December 2, 1923. One of the main conditions of the grant was that upon the expiry of five years from the date of commencement of the tenancy or at any time thereafter, during the continuance of the tenancy, subject to the details given in the statement of conditions, Subedar Bishan Singh, on payment of sums due to the Government under the provisions of those conditions, could acquire proprietary rights in the land. It appears further from those conditions that until then he was to pay certain amount as Malkana of his tenancy in addition to usual land revenue rates and cesses.

(2.) In Punjab Act, 5 of 1912, Section 3 defines 'tenant' to 'mean' any person holding land in a colony as a tenant of Government and includes the predecessors and successors in interest of a tenant' and the expression 'original tenant' is defined to mean 'any male, to whom a tenancy is first allotted by the Collector and include the male transferee of such a tenant and any male nominated by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 to succeed a female, to whom a tenancy was first allotted'. In Chapter II of the Act, are provisions relating to tenants. Section 10 details the issue of statements of conditions of tenancies, sub-section (1) thereof saying that 'the State Government may grant land in a colony to any person on such conditions as it thinks fit.' Sections 17 to 21 give the details of the rights of a tenant with regard to exchange, transfer and succession to the tenancy. These sections read -

(3.) The area of land, as stated with the three sons or Subedar Bishan Singh deceased was 55 acres. After they came over to this side in 1917, they were granted quasi-permanent rights in respect of 13 standard acres and 10 units land in the case of each by Sanads Exhibits P.22, 23 and 24. So they were given 39 standard acres and 30 units of land in lieu of their 55 acres left allotted to Ajit Singh is Exhibit P.24 showing that 13 standard acres and 10 units of land was 60 per cent of the total holding to which he was entitled. This is according to valuation of colony rights in Layallpur District, to which they belonged, as in Appendix IV, at page 313 of Tarlok Singh's Land Resettlement Manual. Reference to such reduction of the allotment by 60 per cent is also given in category (iv)-III at page 70 of the same manual concerning the heading where proprietary rights are allowed direct on payment. This is under the heading 'Colony Rights'. The reduction by various percentages was made in the different types of holdings in the colonies coming under Punjab Act, 5 of 1912 and in the case of the type of land that was with the three sons of Subedar Bishan Singh deceased the cut applied was 40 per cent, and quasi permanent rights were granted to them in the remaining 60 per cent. The land that was then allotted on quasi permanent basis to each one of the three sons of Subedar Bishan Singh deceased was, as stated, 13 standard acres and 10 units, but the Sanad, Exhibit P. 24, in favour of Ajit Singh shows that was further reduced by 40 per cent to 16 standard acres and half unit. The first cut appears to have been according to the Land Resettlement Manual as the usual type of cut against the area of the land left behind by a displaced person according to the schedule prepared by the Rehabilitation Authorities to resettle those persons, and obviously the second cut was to give proprietary rights in the land to them as compared to the rights in the land they had under the provisions of Act, 5 of 1912 before the partition of the country. Whether this was the case with regard to the second cut of 40 per cent or the first cut of 40 per cent is not material for one of those cuts of 40 per cent led to the grant of proprietary rights in the land to the three sons of Subedar Bishan Singh deceased as compared to their tenancy rights under the provision of Act, 5 of 1912. There followed consolidation of holdings in the village and in place of the land originally allotted, each son of Subedar Bishan Singh deceased obtained a new lot in repartition, but as the nature and character of the land this us coming to each one of the three sons of Subedar Bishan Singh deceased on consolidation does not change, so this fact has no substantial bearing on the real question of the nature and character of the land in dispute in these appeals.