- (1.) Tulsi Ram owned land in several villages of Tehsil and District Ferozepur. During his life-time he had given some lands to his son, Kundan Lal, the petitioner herein, in 1960, and thereafter died on June 18, 1962. On the opening of the inheritance, the petitioner got some more land and his total holding came to 62 Acres and 1 Kanal. It was valued at 40 Standard Acres and 10-1/4 Units. The petitioner never filed any declaration under Section 19-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with a view to have his permissible area determined. The Collector took suo motu proceedings for declaration of his surplus area on October 7, 1964. The petitioner appeared in those proceedings, but could not give any cogent reason for not filing the said declaration within six months of the acquisition of the land. The Collector found that 1 Standard Acre and 2-3/4 Units of land in village Burwala and 13 Standard Acres and 2-3/4 Units in village Nidhana, had been under the possession of tenants continuously since prior to April 15, 1953. The land measuring 5 Standard Acres and 12-3/4 Units in village Mandiwala, had remained under a tenant since 1954-55 and thus deducting this area out of the total land-holding of the petitioner he was left with 20 Standard Acres and 8-1/4 Units in his cultivating possession. In this view of the matter he did not impose any penalty under Section 19-B(3) of the Act and held that the petitioner had no surplus area with him.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner requested the Collector to separate 30 Standard Acres as his permissible area and the remaining area under the tenants might be adjudicated upon. The Collector did not accede to that request and observed as under :- "I do not think any force in this request as he had no legal right to reserve this land at this stage. The question of selection only arises when any area is to be taken away from him as a surplus land. He had failed to reserve his permissible area and he should face the consequence if the tenants seek their relief under Section 18. I leave this determination when suits for acquiring proprietary rights are initiated by the said tenants or he initiates for ejectment in the competent Court. As the landowner had no surplus area the case is filed." This order was passed on July 26, 1965, and the petitioner filed an application for review of that order which was rejected on February 8, 1966. In the review application the petitioner had contended that as most of his land was under the tenants since before the commencement of the Act and the tenants purchased the land under their tenancy, he would be left with less than his permissible area. He, therefore, prayed that as he had failed to exercise his right for reservation of his permissible area in 1953 and 1958, the Collector should act under Section 5-B(2) of the Act and in order to avoid the entire area of his being purchased by the tenants, his permissible area may be determined. After the review application was dismissed, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, by order dated October 10, 1966. He expressed the opinion that it was not necessary for the Collector to earmark the permissible area of the petitioner once he had come to the conclusion that no surplus area was to be declared. Further he observed : "As there are a large number of tenants on the petitioner's land since the enforcement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, it will not be admissible to distinguish between one and the other and allow the petitioner to select the area, at this stage. The petitioner had a right to reserve his permissible area or select the same. Since he has failed to do that omission cannot be rectified by the learned Collector." The petitioner filed a revision against that order which was dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner by order dated July 25, 1967. About that time Labh Singh, Mulkh Raj and Ganpat Ram, respondent Nos. 5 to 7, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for purchase of the land in their occupation as tenants. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur, allowed the application of Labh Singh by order dated September 29, 1969. It was held by the Assistant Collector that Labh Singh had fully established that excepting Khasra No. 27-M/10 measuring 8 Kanals, he was in continuous cultivation of the land in dispute for more than six years and the land to be purchased was not the reserved area of the landowner and, therefore, he was fully entitled to purchase the land excepting Khasra No. 27-M/10. The purchase price was determined as Rs. 5603.97 Paise, which was to be paid in ten half-yearly equal instalments of Rs. 560.40 Paise each, and the first instalment was ordered to be deposited within 25 days of the order. Against that order of the Assistant Collector, dated September 29, 1969, an appeal was filed before the Collector, Ferozepur, which was dismissed in default on November 9, 1970. An application for restoration was rejected on November 15, 1972, and it is stated in the writ petition that an appeal-cum-revision against that order is pending before the Commissioner, Ferozepur. The learned counsel has not been able to say whether that appeal-cum-revision has since been decided or not.
(3.) The application of Mulkh Raj for the purchase of land measuring 54 Kanals and 14 Marlas, filed on August 9, 1966, was granted by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ferozepur on January 9, 1970. The price payable was determined as Rs. 4166.72. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Collector, Ferozepur, as barred by time, on August 11, 1970. No further remedy was availed of by the petitioner against that order.;