- (1.)Topan Dass, father of the present petitioners was allotted 85 standard acres and 11 units of land in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. He died in the year 1950 leaving behind the present petitioners-Sada Nand and Jai Gopal. In the year 1961 the case of their surplus area was determined by the Collector, Hissar on 21st August, 1961. 30 ordinary acres and 9 units were declared surplus. The petitioners were left with 60 ordinary acres. Brij Lal was a tenant on lands of the petitioners. He filed a purchase application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for the purchase of land, the particulars of which have been given in the application, on the ground that he was a tenant on that land for the last more than six years, under the petitioners, who were big landowners. He also averred that the land sought to be purchased was not within the permissible area of the landowners. This purchase application was allowed. The petitioners' appeal against this order was dismissed on April 15, 1968. The petitioners filed a revision. The same was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 18th April, 1969. The revision filed by the petitioners to the Financial Commissioner, also met same fate. Aggrieved by the orders of the authorities, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
(2.)Mr. Ram Rang, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Assistant Collector had declared particular fields, the details of which are given in annexure 'C' to the petition, as surplus. Under the law any tenant on the surplus land was entitled to purchase his holding as a tenant. According to the learned counsel, Brij Lal was a tenant on the permissible area of the petitioners. As such, he was not entitled to purchase that land. In the petition, another plea had also been raised that both the petitioners, being displaced persons, were entitled to 60 ordinary acres each. This plea has not been pressed by the learned counsel in view of the authoritative pronouncement by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Munshi Ram etc. v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana etc., 1979 PunLJ 182, wherein, it has been held, that the sons of a displaced person who has died in India after the partition are not entitled to the concession given to the displaced persons under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. As such the petitioners were entitled only to retain 60 ordinary acres of land.
(3.)I have heard the parties and perused the record. I find there is merit in the contention raised by Mr. Ram Rang. The order, copy of which is annexure 'C', passed by the Assistant Collector determining the surplus area of the petitioners gives a clear picture as to what khasra numbers had been declared surplus. The numbers, which have been sought to be purchased by Brij Lal respondent are not included in the surplus area of the petitioners. Consequently these numbers fall within the permissible area of the petitioners. A tenant, by virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 can purchase only those numbers in his possession which are declared surplus. He cannot purchase any land from the permissible area of a big landowner. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Fatehabad, the Collector, Hissar, Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala and the learned Financial Commissioner have all fallen into an error in deciding the purchase application. The Assistant Collector, while dealing with the objections raised by the petitioners, that the area sought to be purchased fell within their permissible area, just by-passed the issue. He felt contented by saying that "It is also in the evidence of the patwari that he does not have any reservation or selection form of the respondent". To say the least, he was very negligent in performing his duties. It was his bounden duty to carefully go through the order declaring the land of the petitioners, surplus. Without making a reference to that order, he could not decide the purchase application. He was not absolved of his duties by simply saying that the patwari did not have any reservation or selection form. The superior authorities took his finding as a finding of fact and did not interfere with the same.