K. Kannan J. - (1.) All the 5 cases are connected and they seek to challenge the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, who disposed of a batch of 5 civil revisions filed under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1953 (hereafter referred to call as "President's Act"). The case was in relation to the ownership of lands that had admittedly vested with one Niranjan Singh. The applications had been filed by several persons claiming as tenants under Niranjan Singh and seeking for proprietary rights as having fructified in their favour by virtue of the provisions of the President's Act. The big land-owner Niranjan Singh appears to have filed a declaration within the stipulated period under the President's Act reserving 30 standard acres for his self cultivation. A notification had been made that the Collector, Patiala under Section 6 (1) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to call as the "Act of 1955") treating 47.51 standard acres as the property held by the land owner as within his reserved area. The increase from 30 standard acres to 47.51 acres became possible by the new provisions in the Act of 1955 providing for certain exemptions for certain classes of properties and certain exemptions that came through the consolidation proceedings.
(2.) Amongst the tenants, one person by name Kirpa Singh applied for grant of proprietary rights under Section 20 of the Act of 1955 read with Section 7-A of the said Act. The prescribed authority passed an order dated 14.11.963 allowing the claim of the tenant in respect of a portion of the land and rejected the claim in respect of the remaining, which formed part of the reserved area of the land of the land owner for self cultivation. An appeal had been filed by the tenant against the portion of the claim, which was rejected by the prescribed authority to the Collector and the latter allowed the appeal filed by the tenant on the principal ground that due opportunity had not been given to the tenant to lead the whole of his evidence and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority for fresh consideration. The prescribed authority passed an order enlarging the area of entitlement to the tenant for proprietary rights that admitted of 66 Kanals 1 Marla. The prescribed authority held that these lands could not have been reserved by the landowner, while the tenant had proved the substance of tenancy in those Khasra Nos. covered within that extent before the commencement of the 2nd Amendment Act of 1956. He also allowed for proprietary rights to obtain for another 18 Kanals of land on the ground that the tenant proved the substance of tenancy for a period of 12 years preceding the commencement of the President's Act. The very exercise of reservation of all the lands made by the land owner had also been disputed by the tenant but the prescribed authority did not allow such a contention to be raised as a matter not having been made subject of dispute before the Collector and not the subject of remand.
(3.) Both the owner and tenant went in appeal to the Collector again against the said order. While the contention of the tenant was that the prescribed authority had not given a finding on the validity of the reservation made by the land owner, the land owner contended that the prescribed authority had not examined as to whether the tenant had been in continuous possession of the particular parcels of land for which proprietary rights had been claimed and that further the compensation amount had itself not been properly calculated. The respective objections of the parties found favour of the Collector, who again remanded the matter by his order dated 30.12.1966 for fresh decision on (i) whether the reservation made by the land owner was valid and if so, whether the same was covered by Section 7-A(2) of the Act of 1955 and (ii) whether any particular parcel of land had been held by the tenant for 12 years continuously to be favoured with a proprietary right in respect thereof. The compensation was also required to be recalculated keeping in view the objections of the land owner that after consolidation, the rate of land revenue had also changed. The prescribed authority passed a detailed order on 29.01.1971 holding that (i) the reservation made by the land owner was valid since the application of the land owner had been made on 11.05.1954 within the stipulated period of six months; (ii) Banjar land could be included in the reserved area and such reservation was not defective on that score; (iii) the area reserved and notified on 26.04.1963 was 47.51 standard acres since the valuation of the land had increased during the period after reservation and after consolidation operations had taken place. Dealing with the second issue of whether the tenant had been in continuous possession for more than 12 years preceding the crucial date namely 3.12.1953 i.e. after the commencement of the President's Act, he found that the tenant had not proved his possession and that he was not entitled to proprietary rights in Khasra No. reserved by the land owner. However, the prescribed authority found that in respect of some other land, the tenant had proved his continuous possession measuring 12 Kanals and 18 Marlas from Kharif 1956, which comprised the unreserved area of the land owner and granted to him the proprietary rights in respect of that land. He also directed suitable calculation as regards compensation to be done by the Collector.;