- (1.) Respondents No. 5 to 11 sought ejectment of Jugti petitioner from Khasra Nos. 6060/3950 to 3952, measuring 5 Biswas 7 Biswas Pucca situated at village Mokhra Kheri Roz, Tehsil and District Rohtak, under section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Punjab Law'') on 24th August, 1973. The Assistant Collector vide order dated 16th February, 1976 ordered ejectment of the petitioner. His order was sustained in appeal by Collector vide his order dated 25th May, 1976 Annexure P-2. The Commissioner vide his order dated 28th October, 1976, Annexure P-3, recommended the revision of the petitioner-tenant for acceptance inter alia on the ground that after coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Land Ceiling Act''), it is not necessary either that the reserved area of a big landowner under the Punjab law would remain as reserved area under the Land Ceiling Act or a small landowner would remain so under the Land Ceiling Act. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 3rd October, 1978, Annexure P-4, declined the recommendation and dismissed the revision. Hence the present petition at the instance of the tenant-petitioner.
(2.) The point that has been primarily canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Ceiling Act, which is in the following terms :- ''33. (1) The provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. (2) The repeal of the provisions of the enactments mentioned in sub-section (1), hereinafter referred to as the said enactments, shall not affect-- (i) the applications for the purchase of land under section 18 of the Punjab Law or section 22 of the Pepsu Law, as the case may be, pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, which shall be disposed of as if this Act had not been passed, (ii) the proceedings for the determination of the surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, under the provisions of either of the said enactments, which shall be continued and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed, and the surplus area so determined shall vest in, and be utilized by, the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (iii) the revisional power of the Financial Commissioner under section 24 of the Punjab Law or under sub-section (3) of section 39 of the Pepsu Law, as the case may be, shall be exercised as if this Act had not been passed, and the area declared surplus in exercise of such revisional power shall vest in, and be utilized by, the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (iv) the power exercisable under section 5-C of the Punjab Law or under section 32 BB of the Pepsu Law, as the case may be, shall be exercised as if this Act had not been passed; and the area determined surplus in exercise of such power shall vest in, and be utilized by, the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act : Provided that the powers of the Pepsu Land Commission under the Pepsu Law shall vest in, and be exercised by, the Collector of the district concerned. (3) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no authority shall pass an order in any proceedings whether instituted before or after the commencement of this Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act''. The provisions of the Punjab Law and Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu law) which were inconsistent with the provisions of Ceiling Act stand repealed, and only the following proceedings initiated under 'Pepsu Law' would survive :- (i) the proceedings which pertained to the purchase of land by the tenant under his cultivation under section 18 of the Punjab law or Section 22 of the Pepsu law pending immediately before the commencement of the Land Ceiling Act which were to be disposed of in accordance with the Punjab law or Pepsu law; and (ii) the proceedings for the determination of the surplus area pending immediately before the commencement of the Land Ceiling Act under the provisions of either of the aforesaid two enactments, were to be continued and disposed of as if the Land Ceiling Act had not been passed and the surplus area so determined was to vest in, and be utilized by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act.
(3.) Apparently, proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant under the provisions of the Punjab law or Pepsu law could not continue if the same were held to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. For instance, if a tenant is sought to be ejected on the ground that the landowner was a small landowner and before the proceedings concluded, the Land Ceiling Act had become operative, which provides a lower limit of permissible area. (The Punjab law had fixed 30 standard acres as permissible limit, the Land Ceiling Act has brought down the said permissible limit to 7 hectares) the result would be that a person who was earlier a small landowner would become a big landowner and the ground that was available for ejectment under Punjab law or Pepsu law would be lost under the Land Ceiling Act. Similarly, if the landowner was seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant was on the area which had been reserved for the landowner for his cultivation, the position of permissible area under the Land Ceiling Act could undergo a change and the landlord who could get under Punjab law 30 standard acres as this permissible area would now get only 7 hectares with the result that more area with him would become surplus and it may well be that the landowner may select some other area as his permissible area under the Act instead of one which is with the tenant. The Land Ceiling Act, as would be seen, had decisive impact on the given proceedings and its continuation after the operation of the Land Ceiling Act was inconsistent with the provisions of the Ceiling Act. A learned Single Judge in the context of Pepsu law expressed the same view in Smt. Jindo v. State of Punjab, 1980 PunLJ 441, in the following words, with which I fully concur : ''The concept of permissible limit or permissible area has been substantially changed under the Punjab Land Reforms Act. The limit for the permissible area has been reduced. The landowner cannot now hold 30 standard acres of land. His holding has to conform to the permissible area given in the Land Reforms Act. To that extent the provisions of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Pepsu Act are inconsistent with the provisions of Land Reforms Act. Though, there is no procedure prescribed under the Land Reforms Act for ejectment of tenants, yet the concept of permissible limit in the Pepsu Act has to give way to the definition of permissible area in the Land Reforms Act, because it is inconsistent with the definition of permissible area in the latter Act. By virtue of the provisions of section 28 the provisions of the Pepsu Act stand repealed to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. So for the purpose of proceedings for ejectment of the tenants under the Pepsu Act, the term 'permissible limit' shall after 2nd of April, 1973 stand substituted by the term 'permissible area' as defined by section 4 of the Land Reforms Act. The ejectment on the grounds given in Sections 7 and 7-A of the Pepsu Act can be made only from the permissible area as defined in section 4 of the Land Reforms Act. After 2nd of April, 1973, no tenant can be ejected on the grounds given in sections 7 and 7-A of the Pepsu Act, from the area which are not in the permissible area of the landowner as defined by section 4, ibid. The ejectment decree in the present case has been passed on the basis that the landlady was a small landowner as conceived by section 7-A of the Pepsu Act. Under this section, ejectment was permissible from the land comprised in the reserved area of a big landowner and from the land of a landowner, who owned 30 standard acres or less of land and the land fell within his permissible area. The order of ejectment passed under section 7-A is, therefore, clearly in conflict with the provisions of Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the permissible area of a landowner is defined differently. It could be only about 17 ordinary acres of first quality of land, whereas under the Pepsu Act, it was 30 standard acres. Such an ejectment is hit by the provisions of section 28 of the Land Reforms Act. The rights acquired by the landlady and the liability of ejectment incurred by the tenant are clearly inconsistent with the provisions of Land Reforms Act and are therefore, clearly illegal. Prima facie the holding of the landlady is more than the permissible area. She had not been declared to be a small landowner under the Land Reforms Act''.;