J.M.Tandon, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Jagraj Singh and others, Petitioners, for the issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction, quashing the executive instructions dated November 23, 1976 (copy annexure P -1), by way of clarification, issued by the State of Punjab, Respondent No. 1 to all its Officers in the matter of determination of the permissible and surplus area under Section 7 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the Act), and also to direct the State of Punjab, Respondent No. 1 to frame a scheme under Clause (a) of Section 11(2) of the Act for conferment of ownership rights on tenants in respect of their tenancy land to the extent of permissible area.
(2.) THE case of the Petitioners is that they and their father Kehar Singh jointly cultivated unreserved land of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in village Ghudha, Tehsil and District Bhatinda, as tenants since before 1960. Kehar Singh died in January, 1973. The land under their tenancy as also any land held by them as owners in the State of Punjab is less than the permissible area allowed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are big land owners and proceedings for the determination of permissible and surplus area under Section 7 of the Act are pending against them before the Collector, Agrarian, Muktsar, Respondent No. 2. The State of Punjab Respondent No. 1, issued executive instructions vide memo No. 6965 -AR -5 -76/38985, dated November 23, 1976 (copy annexure P -1) by way of clarification to all its officers working under the Act to ignore all tenancies comprised in the surplus area of the landowners while determining their permissible and surplus area under Section 7 of the Act. The purport of the instructions is that all land comprised in the surplus area of the landowners vests in the State and the tenants holding it are to be dispossessed irrespective of the fact that they are old tenants or not. The State of Punjab further issued D.O. No. AR -5 -76/41143, dated December 13, 1976 (copy annexure P -2) to all the officers working under the Act directing them to review all cases where tenants' permissible area had been reserved, in terms of the clarification conveyed vide letter dated November 23, 1976. The case of the Petitioners further is that the interpretation of Section 9 of the Act, as given in the instructions (annexure P -1) is wrong and against the spirit of the section itself. The Petitioners are entitled to retain the tenancy land in their possession as tenants' permissible area under the Act. On the failure on the part of Respondent No. 2 to issue a notice to them in the case regarding the determination of permissible area, of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the Petitioners applied to him for impleading them as parties as their rights were likely to be affected adversely in the event of the area of their landlords being declared surplus. Respondent No. 2, vide his order dated January 20, 1977 (copy annexure P -3), rejected the application of the Petitioners holding that they were not necessary parties to the proceedings as the land in excess of the permissible area of the landowners would become surplus irrespective of the fact that old tenants were in occupation of the same. Respondent No. 2 based his view on the instructions issued by the Government vide letter annexure P -1, wherein it had been elucidated that in the proceedings against the landowners no right accrued to a tenant in the matter of reservation of land as tenants' permissible area. The instructions, annexure P -1 and P -2, issued by the Government as also the order, annexure P -3 passed by Respondent No. 2 are contrary to law and are liable to be quashed. They have therefore, filed the present writ praying that the executive instructions issued by the Government be quashed and the State of Punjab, Respondent No. 1, be directed to frame a scheme under Section 11 of the Act for conferment of ownership rights on the tenants to the extent of their tenants' permissible area. The State of Punjab, Respondent No. 1, in their written statement admitted that the Petitioners are cultivating land measuring 387 kanals and 15 marlas of Respondents No. 3 to 5 in village Ghudha, since 1959, but denied that there was any provision in the Act for reserving any land as tenants' permissible area. The fact that the Petitioners' tenancy was less than the permissible limit was, therefore, irrelevant. The instructions contained in letter annexure P -1 clarifying the relevant provisions of the Act were claimed to be legally valid.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that the Petitioners have a right under the Act to reserve and retain land in their occupation as tenants' permissible area and the instructions annexure P -1 issued by the State of Punjab are illegal and destructive of the express provisions of the Act as also its object and scheme. It has also been argued that the Government has no right to issue executive instructions like annexure P -1 to the authorities under the Act relating to matters which are to be disposed of by them in quasi -judicial capacity.;