MAJOR DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of four Civil Writ Petition Nos. 450 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab and another), 641 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab and another), 642 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab and another) and 643 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab and another). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 450 of 1985.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Avtar Singh was a tenant under the petitioner. On 9.2.1982, the petitioner filed an application seeking ejectment of respondent No. 2 from the area reserved on Form K-2 under the provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short "Tenure Act"). On 3.6.1983, Assistant Collector Ist Grade accepted the application and passed an order of ejectment of respondent No. 2 from the reserved area of the petitioner. Assistant Collector viewed that amendment in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in 1969 that the tenant shall not be liable to be evicted from a minimum of 5 standard acres until he was allotted alternative land should not apply to the petitioner being member of Armed Forces. The petitioner dispossessed respondent No. 2 on the basis of this order. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against the same before Collector, which was dismissed on 26.9.1983, but with a rider that respondent No. 2 shall be ejected from the reserved area only after his re-settlement on the alternative land equivalent to 5 standard acres, as provided in the proviso to the Section. This was so held finding that the petitioner had already retired from the service of the Army and as such was not entitled to protection available under Section 9-A(i) of the Tenure Act. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur which was dismissed on 2.5.1984. Financial Commissioner also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 31.12.1984. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the orders dated 31.12.1984, 2.5.1984 and 26.9.1983 passed by Financial Commissioner, Commissioner and Collector, Amritsar, respectively. The petitioner, claiming to be a member of the Armed Forces, pleads that he would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions to Section 9-A(i) of the Section, which provides that tenant of a landowner, who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, shall not be entitled to the benefit of this Section. The Section grants benefit to a tenant of a small landowner to retain possession of his tenancy to the extent of 5 acres until he is accommodated on a surplus area otherwise. The petitioner pleads that he would be exempted from the operation of this stipulation being member of the Armed Forces.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner has made two-fold submission to challenge the impugned order. The counsel would first submit that the petitioner was rightly given benefit of the proviso under Section 9-A of the Tenure Act, which has been wrongly declined by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. The proviso, which is in issue, is to the effect that if the tenant concerned is the tenant of a small landowner, he shall be allowed to retain possession of his tenancy to the extent of 5 standard acres including any other land which he may hold as tenant or owner until he is so accommodated on surplus area or otherwise. In 1969 as an amendment, it was added that tenant of landowner, who is a member of Armed Forces of the Union, shall not be entitled to the benefit of this Section. Invoking this proviso, the petitioner has sought the ejectment of respondent No. 2 by pleading that he was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and as such respondent-tenant would not be entitled to the benefit of retaining possession of his tenancy to the extent of 5 standard acres as laid down under Section 9-A of the Tenure Act. As per the counsel, the question for determination are the words "members of the Armed Forces". Assistant Collector Ist Grade has ordered the ejectment of respondent No. 2 by giving benefit of the proviso treating him to be a member of the Armed Forces. Respondent No.2 challenged this order on the ground that petitioner was not member of the Armed Forces as having voluntary left the service and, thus, the benefit of the amended provision has been wrongly extended to him.