- (1.) Our groups of tenants of the appellant, who is a landowner, filed separate applications under S. 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Pepsu Act XIII of 1955) thereinafter referred to as the Act-for the grant of proprietary rights in respect of lands being cultivated by them. These applications were made sometime in May, 1960. On May 3 31/05/1960, the prescribed authority-Tehsildar Nabha- passed four orders granting the applications of the tenants on payment of 90 times the land revenue. We may mention that one group was constituted by Sundur, Ganga Ram, Ram Partap, Gurdial Singh and Dalip, sons of Kishan Singh.
(2.) The appellant filed four appeals to the Collector, Nabha Sub-Division. It was urged in these appeals that the prescribed authority had not allowed time to the appellant to file copies of the reservation forms which the appellant is alleged to have submitted, but the Collector held that no copy of the reservation. form had been presented to the prescribed authority. Other points were also raised but apparently not seriously pressed.
(3.) The appellant then filed four revisions before the Commissioner who forwarded them to the Financial Commissioner for disposal. The Financial Commissioner by four orders, dated December 6, 1960, dismissed the revisions. The Financial Commissioner observed : "It is admitted that the petitioner owns more than the permissible limit of land, and that she has failed to exercise her right of reservation provided by S. 5. The tenants are, therefore, prima facie, entitled to acquire proprietary rights in their tenancy under S. 22, read with S. 20 and 7-A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The only objection to the acquisition raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the landowner had filed a return to the Collector under S. 32-B of the Act, and consequently should be allowed to retain her land equal to the permissible limit. This argument is understandable because that S. benefits landowners and tenants who held land under their personal cultivation in excess of the permissible limit. In that event landowners and tenants could select 30 acres from their self cultivation but is under the cultivation of the tenants themselves. This being so. the petitioner cannot derive any benefits from S. 32-B. Having failed to reserve the land within the prescribed period she has no option but to acquiesce in the acquisition of the proprietary rights by her tenants. The result, unfortunately, will be that the landowner will he deprived of all her land, including the permissible limit allowed to a landowner, but this result cannot be avoided in the case of landowners who have failed to exercise their right of reservation within the prescribed period. ";