Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) SUBE Singh petitioner is the son of Shri Debi Singh, a resident of village Bhali Anandpur, Tahsil and District Rohtak. Debi Singh was a big landowner holding 49 Standard Acres and 6 1/2 Units of land. On 10th April, 1953, when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 hereinafter called the Act', came into force, by order dated 16th April, 1960, Collector Rohtak, declared 19 Standard Acres and 6 1/2 Units of land of the petitioner as surplus. Killa numbers of that land are mentioned in the order, a copy of which is Annexure B' to the writ petition. The petitioner made an application under section 18 of the Act before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak, on 11th March. 1965, stating that he had been a tenant of 3 Standard Acres and 14 1/4 Units of land comprised in Killa Nos. 67/12, 68/5 and 77/3 -6, which originally belonged to his father and had been declared surplus. In those proceedings, the Patwari appeared and he stated that Sube Singh had been an occupancy tenant under Debi Singh landowner since the year 1956 -57 according to the entries in the khasra girdawari. The price of the land was assessed as Rs. 3236/ - per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 9465.30 as the price determined in accordance with various sub -sections of section 18 of the Act. This order was passed on 19th July, 1965.
(2.) THE petitioner and his brother Ram Kumar filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. Ambala, on 3rd of October, 1966, against the order of the Collector, Rohtak, dated the 16th April, i960, declaring the land surplus in the hands of Debi Singh. The plea was taken that the two brothers were tenants under their father at the rate of l/3rd Batai and the surplus area declared being their tenants' permissible area could not have been declared surplus. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, by his order dated 6th June, 1967. The learned Commissioner observed that the purchase of land made by Sube Singh under the order of the Assistant Collector dated 19th July, 1965, was not a genuine purchase under section 18 of the Act and that whole thing had been stage -managed so as to unable the landowner to take out the land from surplus pool. Against the order of the Commissioner, a revision was filed before the learned Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 22nd July, 1967. The petitioner than filed the present writ petition on 9th February, 1968, for quashing the orders of Respondents 2 to 4.
(3.) THE return to the writ petition has been filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government. Haryana, Settlement Department, in which it has been emphasized that the petitioner could not be a tenant of the land under his father in view of the definition of "self -cultivation" in s. 2(9) of the Act and for that reason he could not purchase land from his father under section 18 of the Act. In refutation of that assertion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the definition of "self -cultivation" is only for the purpose of reservation of permissible area and not for the purpose of section 18 of the& Act. The ' tenant" has been defined in section 2(6) of the Act as under: 'Tenant' has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887), and includes a sub -tenant and self -cultivating lessee, but shall not include a present holder, as defined in section 2 of the Resettlement Act.;