GURDEV SINGH Vs. MOHNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary question which calls for decision in this reference to the full Bench is whether section 19-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953)as subsequently amended (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) creates a bar in the way of a land-owner already holding his maximum permissible area under the Act from instituting a suit and obtaining a decree for possession by pre-emption. The circumstances in which this question has arisen may first be surveyed briefly. One gurmel Singh sold to Mohna Ram and other respondents 237 Kanals and 2 Marlas of agricultural land for Rupees 22,945/ -. Gurdev Singh and his three brothers, the plaintiffs claiming to be the sons of the brother of the father of the vendor, filed the suit from which the present appeal has arisen, for possession of the said land by pre-emption. In paragraph 2 of their written statement, the vendees took a defence to the suit in the following terms:

(2.) BY his judgment, dated September 4, 1964, the Subordinate Judge, Fazilka, dismissed the suit for pre-emption on the finding that though the plaintiffs were proved to be sons of the father's brother of the vendor, their right to pre-emption 19-A of the Ceiling Act, as each of the plaintiffs owned more than thirty standard acres of land on the date of sale of the land in dispute. The learned Subordinate judge held that inasmuch as section 19-A precluded the purchase of land in excess of the permissible area, the plaintiffs could not claim that they had any preferential or primary right to purchase land in violation of the provisions of that section. Whereas the appeal preferred by plaintiffs-appellants other than Gurtej singh was dismissed, the appeal of Gurtej Singh plaintiff was allowed to the extent of 3 standard acres and 14 units out of the land in dispute on the finding that he was a small land-owner inasmuch as he owned only 26 standard acres and 2 units of land which was less than his permissible area by 3 standard acres and 14 units.

(3.) BEFORE Shri Sant Ram Garg, District Judge, Ferozepore, it was conceded on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants that acquisition of agricultural land in exercise of the right of pre-emption amounted to "acquisition" of land within the meaning section 19-A of the Ceiling Act. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in bhupinder Singh v. Smt. Surinder Kaur. 67 Pun LR 735 : (AIR 1966 Punj 310) was cited before the District Court, and was noticed in the judgment of that Court. In the face of the binding Division Bench judgment of this Court, the learned District judge entertained the argument to side-track the issue, and held that the point canvassed before him had not been raised before the Bench of this Court, and that, therefore, what had to be seen was whether at the time of the sale each of the plaintiffs had a cause of action to acquire more agricultural land by preemption or not. Thus having evaded the impact of the decision of the High Court on the instant case, the first appellate Court went into the question of the individual holding of each of the plaintiffs-appellants and partially allowed the appeal in favour of Gurtej Singh plaintiff-appellant to the extent indicated above. Regarding the manner in which the learned District Judge avoided following the division Bench judgment of this Court which fully covered the point in issue, we need not say anything more in this judgment than express our strong disapproval of his conduct in this matter which conducts lacks judicial propriety.