BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions by the same petitioners relating to two different pieces of land. The petitioners, who are 14 in number, claim to be transferees in respect of two parcels of land which originally belonged to Goverdhan Dass and Harbans Lal. In petition No. 1475 of 1963, the first four petitioners, Balwant Singh, Jaswant Singh, Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh, along with Dilraj Singh, Balraj Singh and Rajinder Singh purchased 616 Kanals of land from Goverdhan Dass of village Kana Khera for Rs. 30,000/- on 22nd May, 1956 by a registered sale deed. Land measuring 680 Kanals and 16 Marlas in petition No. 1476 of 1963 was purchased by the same set of vendees from Harbans Lal for a sum of Rs. 32,000/- again on 22nd May, 1956. Petitioners 5 to 14 purchased the shares of the vendees who had joined with the first four petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that these two parcels of land were purchased by them from Goverdhan Dass and Harbans Lal on the understanding that the lands being sold by them fell within their permissible areas, Subsequent to these transactions some portions of the lands sold to the petitioners were declared surplus areas in the hands of Goverdhan Dass and Harbans Lal. The Collector, Hissar, in the case of Goverdhan Dass declared by his order of 31st March, 1961, an area of 63.53 ordinary acres as his surplus area. A major portion of the area sold by Goverdhan Dass to these vendees fell within his permissible limits but a deduction was made in the case of vendees proportionately with regard to the area which was declared surplus. The petitioners on coming to know that a portion of the lands purchased by them had been declared surplus moved the authorities and having failed both before the Collector and the Financial Commissioner they have now sought the intervention of this Court in certiorari proceedings.

(2.) The first submission made by Mr. Jawanda, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that both Goverdhan Dass and Harbans Lal were displaced persons and the allotments of the lands sold by them to the petitioners having been made in terms of standard acres surplus areas should also have been computed on that basis. What appears to have been done is that while allotments were made in standard acreage, surplus areas have been calculated on basis of ordinary acreage. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, in which 'permissible area' is defined "in relation to a landowner or a tenant", to mean thirty standard acres, and "where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed sixty acres, such sixty acres". Stress is laid on proviso (ii) to this sub-section which says that :-

(3.) The second point raised by Mr. Jawanda as embodied in paragraph 8 of the petition is that all the petitioners being owners of less than 10 standard acres, their holdings could not be disturbed as provided in the executive instructions issued by the State Government. Reference to these instructions is made in the Division Bench authority of Mehar Singh (as the Hon'ble Chief Justice then was) and myself in Bhagat Gobind Singh v. Punjab State, 1963 65 PunLR 105. The instructions, to which reference was made in this judgment, are to this effect :-