H.R. Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS case has been referred to the Division Bench in pursuance of the order of Mehar Singh, J., and the only question which arises for determination is whether the land, which is shown banjar jadid or banjar qadim in the jamaband of 1952 -53, answers to the description of the land as defined in Section 2(8) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act No. 10 of 1953 (hereinafter referred to aS the Act).
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the Petitioner is a resident of Rewari and owns considerable property there including a large area of land. The Act came into force on 15th April 1953 and it was provided therein that a landlord could have certain permissible area which, in the case of the Petitioner, means thirty standard acres or sixty ordinary acres. The land -owner was entitled to reserve the permissible area and the rest of the area was denominated as surplus area and was available for utilization by Government as provided in the Act. The Petitioner in pursuance of the Act reserved an area for himself. In 1959 the Petitioner made an application to the Collector stating that some portion of the land belonging to him was uncultivable and as such was exempt from the provisions of the Act as it did not fall within the definition of the word "land" as given in the Act. It was further submitted that land, mentioned in annexure A -1 of the petition, was uncultivable and had neither been occupied nor let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and the same could not be treated as land. The Petitioner also applied in 1960 for reservation to himself of thirty standard acres of land a second time in lieu of the earlier reservations made by him. On receipt of the application mentioned above of the Petitioner, the Collector ordered on 1st January 1950 that Ghairmumkin lands should not be included in calculating the area of the Petitioner but banjar jadid and banjar qadim lands should be calculated. On 5th January 1980 the Collector sent the file to the Tahsildar, Rewari, for spot inspection. It was further directed that the area of the land, which came within the definition of the word "land", as defined in the Punjab Tenancy Act, might be counted keeping in view the instructions of the Punjab Government. The Tahsildar thereafter made a report dated 3rd March 1960 (Annexure A -4) stating that on inspection of the spot, houses had been found on the land bearing certain khasras and they did not fall within the definition of land. The remaining land, description of which is given in that annexure, was found to be banjar qadim. Further orders were also solicited. The Collector then passed an order on 21 -8 -1960 that the areas, which, did not come within the definition of land, should be excluded. The Tahsildar thereafter made a report dated 22nd March 1960 to the effect that the area of land, which, had been found to be banjar jadid or banjar qadim, could not be excluded from the total holding of the Petitioner. The Petitioner then filed, objections before the Collector, but the Collector made an order on 31st Mann 1960" to the effect that all types of banjar land was to be counted as part of the ownership of the landowner while calculating his permissible area. The objections of the Petitioner on this score were, accordingly, held to be not tenable. Appeal as well as revision filed by the Petitioner against that order to the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were dismissed. The Petitioner, thereafter filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner. Where the petition came up for hearing before Mehar Singh J., the only question arising for determination was found to be whether the banjar jadid or banjar qadim land of the Petitioner answers to the description of land as defined in the Act. Although the learned Judge was of the view that banjar Jadid or banjar qadim land did not answer to the description of the land as defined in the Act, in view of the fact that the question was likely to arise in a large number of cases, he directed that the matter should be decided by a larger Bench.
(3.) ACCORDING to Section 2(8) of the Act, the word "land" shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act of 1887. The definition of the word "land" as given in Section 4(1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act is as under: 'land' means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and includes the sites of buildings and other structures on such land. It would appear from the above definition that before land can fall under the definition of the land as given above, two factors are essential to be proved: (1) that it should not be land which is occupied as the site of any building in a town or village, and (2) is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture. The first part of the definition is obviously not applicable as the land in question is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village. The second part of the definition, in my, opinion, also does not cover the land in question because it has not been shown that the land is occupied or has been let for agricultural purpose or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture. On the contrary the fact that the land is banjar jadid or banjar qadim goes to show that it has not been occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture. According to Land Revenue Assessment Rules of 1929 uncultivated land, which has remained unsown for four successive harvests, is classified as banjar jadid land, while the land, which has remained unsown for eight successive harvests, is described as banjar qadim. As such the banjar jadid or banjar qadim land cannot be held Jo answer to the description of the word "land" as given in the Act.;