- (1.) 46.59 standard acres of land, situated in village Jalbehra, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda, was owned by Smadh Kashi Puri beihtmam Sewa Puri chela Magni Puri. The land being more than the maximum allowed by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, proceedings were taken by the authorities, in the absence of any return under Section 32-B and on the proposal of the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian), accepted by the Collector, a draft statement No. 8 was issued on 26th of May, 1960, declaring 16.59 standard acres as surplus, as detailed in the form. This form was duly served on Sewa Puri, the Mahant of the Smadh, and he was duly served on 6th of June, 1960. He did not put in any objection or otherwise approach the authorities raising any protest, and a formal order of declaration of the area as surplus was passed by the Collector on 24th of October, 1960. Even thereafter he did not take any steps at all. His possession was sought to be disturbed in view of this declaration when he approached this Court by the present writ, alleging that the Smadh was a charitable institution and the area was owned by the Smadh and was in his (Sewa Puri's) possession only as a manager and not in his personal capacity and that the Collector having failed to give any finding that the institution did not fall within Section 51, which provided that the provisions of the Act were not to apply, inter alia to lands belonging to any religious or charitable institutions, the order of the Collector was illegal. The return filed by the State raises mainly two objections, first, that the Mahant not only did not file a return but failed to appear and raise objection after the service of form No. 8, and the order of the Collector having been passed as far back as 1960, the Mahant approached this Court after good deal of laches, and secondly, that, in any case, under Section 51, before an institution could claim exemption from the provisions of the Act, a notification of the State Government has to be made in respect of the institution.
(2.) The relevant portion of Section 51 is as follows :- "51. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to - (a) * * * * (b) * * * * (c) lands belonging to any religious or charitable institution but not to a Mahant, Mohtamim or manager thereof. * * * * Explanation. - For the purposes of clause (c), 'religious or charitable institution' means - (i) a temple, (ii) a gurdwara, (iii) any other religious place of a public nature, (iv) a wakf as defined in clause (1) of Section 3 of the Muslim Wakfs Act, 1954* * *,or (v) any other institution of a public nature the object of which is relief to the poor, education, medical relief or the advancement of any other object of general public utility including religious teaching or worship, which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify." Though, to begin with, it was urged that the provisions with regards to notification by the State Government applied to all the five categories given under the Explanation and the case was adjourned to enable the State counsel to produce any notification relating to categories (i) to (iv) yet none was produced and, in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Durga Dass v. The Financial Commissioner, etc., 1962 PunLJ 85), Civil Writ No. 199 of 1961 decided by Mahajan J. on 26th of April, 1962 it must be held that the provision with regard to notification is applicable only to clause (v).
(3.) On going through the record of the case produced before me, I find that there is a statement of Sewa Puri dated 17th of June, 1959, i.e., nearly a year before the recommendation by the Naib Tehsildar was made nearly 16 months before the impugned order by the Collector was passed. In this, it is clearly stated by him as under :- "Kashi Puri was my grand Guru. 50 acres of land is attached to his Smadh, which was his ancestral land. It is under self-cultivation of me. At the spot there is arrangement for supply of food to the public. I did not know that any form was to be filled in and for this reason, none was submitted." One thing is clear from the above, that it was clearly brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that the land did not belong personally to Sewa Puri and that the land belonged to the Smadh and was only being cultivated by him. It was further made clear that the income from it was utilised, at least partially, for giving food to the public. Prima facie, therefore, there was an indication of the institution being of a charitable nature. There is no finding given in the impugned order of the Collector that the institution in whose name the land stood, was not a charitable or religious institution falling under category (iii) to which the provisions of the Act did not apply under Section 51. It is obvious that this institution is neither a temple nor a Gurdwara. The only question is whether it falls under category (iii) or category (v). If it falls under category (v), then naturally a notification by the State Government is necessary. However, it would be for the Collector to go into this matter after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead such evidence as they may deem fit and then to give his finding. If he comes to the conclusion that the case falls under category (iii), then the provisions of this Act are inapplicable. On the other hand, if he finds that it falls under category (v) then a notification would be necessary, and if there is no such notification or if he comes to the conclusion that it does not fall under either of these two categories, the area in dispute can be declared as surplus.;