S.S. Kang, J. - (1.) Jodha Petitioner owned 31 standard acres 3/3/4 units of land on 15th April, 1953, i.e. the date on which the Punjab security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') came into force. Thereafter the consolidation proceedings were carried out in his village in the year 1958. Due to the change in the valuation of the land during consolidation proceedings, the holdings of the Petitioner increased from 31 standard acres 3/3/4 units of lands to 33 standard acres and 4 units.
(2.) The Petitioner taking himself to be a small landowner did not file any return. The Collector (Surplus area), Palwal, acting under Sec. 5 -B of the Act, selected 30 standard acres as permissible area of the Petitioner and declared 3 standard acres and 4 units of land as surplus with the Petitioner, by his order dated 24th September, 1959. The appeal and the revision filed by the Petitioner were dismissed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.
(3.) The short point which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Collector could take info account the accretion in the holdings of the Petitioner due to the consolidation proceedings taken out in the village. Mr. S.K. Aggarwal learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has argued that the increase in the holding of the Petitioner due to consolidation cannot be taken into account while determining the surplus areas. In support of this contention he relied upon a decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v/s. The Punjab State and Ors., 1966 PLJ 110, wherein it has been held as follow: On a reading of Sec. 19F(b) of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, it would appear that for the purpose of determining the status of the landowner and evaluating his land at any time under the Act, the lard owned by him immediately before the commencement of the Act must? always be evaluated in terms of standard acres as if the evaluation was being made on the date of such commencement. There is no scope for evaluating the subsequent improvements in the land due to consolidation operations or otherwise. This authority supports the contention of the learned Counsel. The collector while deciding the surplus area case of the Petitioner had to take his holdings as on 15th April, 1953. On that day the Petitioner owned 31 standard acres and 3/3/4 units of land and only 1 standard acres and 3/3/4 units of land were surplus with him. As such only this area of land could be declared surplus. The Collector could not take into account the accretion to the holdings of the Petitioner by the process of the consolidation proceedings.;