C.G. Suri, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a tenant whose application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') for purchase of land in his possession has been dismissed by the Revenue Officers of the State of Haryana, Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 on the ground that the petitioner's landlord Shri Ram Lal, Respondent No. 1 was a small landowner.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is a displaced person from West Pakistan and in the year 1949 had been allotted 66 Standard Acres and 11 Units of evacuee land by the Rehabilitation Authorities. 16 Standard Acres and 12 1/2 Units out of this land were cancelled as excess allotment in the year 1937 with the result that the petitioner was left with the little less than 50 Standard Acres of land which on conversion equaled 158 ordinary Acres. This was less than 'the permissible area' in view of the definition of that expression in Clause (b) of Proviso (ii) to Sub -section (3) of Section 2 of the Act. The way this clause, is drafted, nothing may seem to turn on the date on which the allotment of land was made to a displaced person. Respondent No. 1 who was a displaced person, has, therefore, to be treated as having been allotted land which was in excess of 30 Standard Acres but less than 50 Standard Acres. In this case, the permissible area is to be taken to be equal to the area ultimately allotted to him after a part cancellation of the allotment. A tenant's purchase application can succeed only where his landlord can be described to be a landowner other than a small landowner and where the land sought to be purchased is not included in the reserved or the permissible area of the landowner.
(3.) THE main contention of Shri Kang, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that his landlord's lands became canal irrigated in 1952 and that its value in standard Acres had gone up. Another contention is that original allotment made to his landlord in 1949 was of an area which was in excess of the permissible limits. The third contention was that his landowner's holding even after the part cancellation of the allotment was in respect of an area of about 158 actual acres and that if this area in actual acres is taken into account, it would be in excess even of the permissible limits prescribed for a displaced person All these three contentions have been fully met and negatived in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, (1966) 68 P.L.R. 543, and a Supreme Court decision in Bhagwan Dass v. The State of Punjab : (1966) 68 P.L.R. 300. A single Bench decision of this Court in Mani Ram and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, I.L.R. 1970 P&H. 400, has also been relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, Shri Sarin, in this connection.;