Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.) THE Special Collector (I) Punjab by his order, dated 21st June, 1963 declared 19.21/2 Standard Acres of land belonging to the petitioner Tara Singh of village Burj Baghelsinghwala, district Sangrur as surplus. This order having been upheld in appeal, the petitioner went up in revision to the Financial Commissioner before whom it was complained that in evaluating the land the provision contained in section 32 NN of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called the Act) had been ignored in as much as the valuation had been made not with reference to the condition of the land as it was on 30th October, 1956, but on the basis of the last jamabandi, and that Banjar Qadim and Ghair -mumkin land has not been left out of consideration while assessing the surplus area. The learned Financial Commissioner found that though in accordance with the provisions of section 32 -NN of the Act the condition of land as it stood immediately before 30th October, 1956, had to be taken into account, the material placed on record by the petitioner did not indicate that the condition of land as stated in the last jamabandi had changed and it was different on the relevant date, 30th October, 1956. With regard to the second contention, he pointed out that in accordance with the specific provision contained in section 32 -NN of the Act the Ghair -mumkin land had to be included in the definition of "land" and the record disclosed that Ghair -mumkin land had not been taken into account by the authorities in computing the permissible area of the petitioner. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Special Collector, which has been upheld in appeal and revision under the Act.
(2.) THOUGH several grounds were taken in the petition for attacking the validity of the impugned orders, at the hearing before me, Mr. K.K. Mahajan, appearing for the petitioner, has confined his case to the following contentions: (i) that in assessing the surplus area the Collector had acted in violation of section 32 -NN of the Act, which provides that in evaluating the land for converting it in to Standard Acres, the Collector has to look to its kind immediately before 30th October, 1956 and the determination of the surplus area on the basis of the jamabandi prepared much earlier to that date is illegal; (2) that the valuation of the land had not been correctly made as the report of the Qanungo, dated 8th February, 1962, which was submitted in obedience to the order of the Collector (Agrarian) dated 25th October, 1961, showed that a few Khasra numbers were banjar at the spot, had been ignored, and (3) that the sons of the petitioner who formed joint Hindu family could not be denied their independent right to hold 30 Standard Acres of land, and section 32 -KK of the Act is unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 3 So far as the last contention is concerned, Mr. K.R. Mahajan as fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 177 wherein the constitutional validity of section 32 -KK has been upheld.
(3.) IN support of the first two contentions, Mr. Mahajan relied upon section 32 -NN and urges that for evaluating the land held by a person and determining surplus area, the Collector has to look to its kind immediately before 30th October, 1956, and the evaluation on the basis of the Jamabandi prepared much earlier is not in consonance with law. This contention is well -founded. The language of section 32 -NN is clear and leaves no doubt that the condition of the land as it stood immediately before 30th October, 1 956, has to be taken into account, and the Explanation to rule 5 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Rules, 1958 which provides that "for the purpose of determining the class of any land the entries in the latest Jamabandi of such land shall be conclusive, "is not in consonance with section 32 -NN of the Act. Accordingly, the valuation of the land on the basis of the latest Jamabandi prepared much earlier than 30th October, 1956, treating it as a conclusive evidence of the condition of land, is not in accordance with law especially when the order shows that the Special Collector had ignored the provision of section 32 -NN, which specifically requires him to determine the condition of land as it was immediately before 30th October, 1956. This is the view which was taken by P.C. Pandit J. in Maghar Singh v. The Punjab State : (1967) 69 P.L.R. 944 where his Lordships observed: It is undisputed that the valuation entirely depends on the kind of the land and if the quality of the land has either decreased or increased since the preparation of the latest jamabandi, the basis for its evaluation should be its kind immediately before the 30th of October, 1956 and not its class recorded in the latest Jamabandi. It may, however, be pointed out that in the case with which Pandit J. was dealing, it was admitted on behalf of the State that the land had been evaluated with reference to its condition as it was on 21st August, 1956 and not immediately before 30th October, 1956. Furthermore, the Khasra Girdawaris for the years 1955 to 1963 were produced before the authorities which show that the condition of land as recorded in the latest jamabandi was not correct.;