- (1.) The petitioner is the son of Devi Dayal who owned land in village Khajji Wala, tehsil Lodhran, district Multan, now forming part of the territory of West Pakistan. Kirpa Ram, a brother of Devi Dayal, also owned land in that village but he was killed in Pakistan in the communal disturbances and could not migrate to India. Devi Dayal migrated to India and was allotted 33 standard acres 11-1/2 units of land in village Nagoke, tehsil Sirsa, district Hissar, on quasi-permanent basis, in lieu of the land left by him and Kirpa Ram in Pakistan as he was considered the heir of Kirpa Ram. Devi Dayal died on the 15th January, 1953 and on his death the land was mutated half and half in favour of the petitioner and his mother, that is to say, each one of them got 16 standard acres 15-3/4 units of land. In January, 1958, the petitioner's mother gifted the land held by her to the petitioner so that the petitioner came to hold all the 33 standard acres 11-1/2 units of land. On the 24th June, 1958, permanent rights in the aforesaid land were transferred to the petitioner by the Settlement Officer, Sirsa and two sanads were issued to him.
(2.) The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), came into force with effect from the 15th April, 1953 and the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa, allowed the petitioner 60 ordinary acres, equal to 18.75 standard acres, according to his choice and declared the remaining 49.81 ordinary acres, equal to 15.57 standard acres, as surplus area, by order dated the 22nd October, 1962. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division, by order dated the 16th March, 1964. The revision against that order was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab by order dated the 16th April, 1964. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in this Court on the 19th May, 1964, which was admitted on the 22nd May, 1964. The petitioner's dispossession was stayed till the decision of the writ petition.
(3.) The submission of the petitioner is that he has to be considered a displaced person and is to be allowed permissible area of 50 standard acres and he is entitled to retain the area in his possession which was more than 30 standard acres but less than 50 standard acres. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the following provisions of the Act are worthy of note :- "Section 2(1). - 'Land-owner' means a person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act XVII of 1887), and shall include an 'allottee' and 'lessee' as defined in clauses (b) and (c), respectively, of Section 2 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949 (Act XXXVI of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the 'Resettlement Act'. Section 2(3). - 'Permissible area' in relation to a landowner or a tenant means thirty standard acres and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed sixty acres, such sixty acres : Provided that - (i) no area under an orchard at the commencement of this Act, shall be taken into account in computing the permissible area; (ii) for a displaced person - (a) who has been allotted land in excess of fifty standard acres, the permissible area shall be fifty standard acres or one hundred ordinary acres, as the case may be, (b) who has been allotted land in excess of thirty standard acres but less than fifty standard acres, the permissible area shall be equal to the allotted area, (c) who has been allotted land less than thirty standard acres, the permissible area shall be thirty acres, including any other land or part thereof, if any, that he owns in addition. Section 2(11). - 'Displaced person' has the meaning assigned to it in the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949 (Act XXXVI of 1949)". An allottee has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Resettlement Act as under :- " 'Allottee' means a displaced person to whom land is allotted by the Custodian under the conditions published with East Punjab Government notification No. 4892/S., dated the 8th July, 1949, and includes his heirs, legal representatives and sub-lessees". "Displaced person" is defined in Section 2(c) of the Resettlement Act as under :- " 'Displaced person' means a land-holder in the territories now comprised in the Province of West Punjab or a person of Punjabi extraction who holds land in the Provinces of North West Frontier Province, Sind or Baluchistan or any State adjacent to any of the aforesaid Provinces and acceding to the Dominion of Pakistan and who has since the 1st day of March, 1947, abandoned or been made to abandon his land in the said territories on account of civil disturbances, or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country." It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of his father Devi Dayal on the 15th January, 1953 he became a displaced person as he became vested with the rights in the land left in Pakistan by his father and uncle and from that time onwards he became a displaced person. I regret my inability to agree to this submission. The definition of displaced person as set out above does not include the heirs or legal representatives of the displaced person who held land in Pakistan and migrated to India in the wake of partition. He alone can be considered a displaced person and not his heirs after his death. It is no doubt true that 'allottee' includes the heirs, legal representatives and sub-lessees of the displaced person to whom the land is in the first instance allotted by the Custodian but that does not make the heirs or legal representatives or the sub-lessee of the original allottee a displaced person with the result that an heir of a displaced person to whom the land was allotted in the first instance is not entitled to the benefit of clause (ii) of the proviso to the definition of "permissible area" in Section 2(3) of the Act. The explanation to Section 2(3) of the Act also makes it clear. The explanation is in these words : "For the purposes of determining the permissible area of a displaced person, the provisions of proviso (ii) shall not apply to the heirs and successors of the displaced persons to whom the land is allotted." The learned counsel submits that according to the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Amar Singh and others v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab and another, 1957 AIR(SC) 599 , a quasi-permanent allotment did not confer any rights of property in the land allotted to an allottee which could be protected under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. From this observation he infers that the quasi-permanent allotment could not be considered as the allotment as envisaged by proviso (ii) to Section 2(3) of the Act and that the allotment is deemed to have taken place on the 24th June, 1958 when the proprietary rights in the land were transferred to the petitioner and sanads were granted. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court summed up the rights of a quasi-permanent allottee in the said judgment as under :- "Pausing here and summarising the position as it obtained till 22nd July, 1952 (when further relevant rules were framed) as regards the rights under the (quasi-permanent) allotment scheme introduced by notification of the 8th July, 1949, may be stated thus. (Reference given as against each are to the relevant provisions of the notification of the 8th July, 1949). 1. The allottee is entitled to right of use and occupation of the property until such time as the property remains vested in the Custodian.[Clause 3(1)] 2. The benefit of such right will enure to his heirs and successors.[Definition of 'allottee'] 3. His enjoyment of the property is on the basis of paying land revenue thereupon and cesses for the time being. Additional rent may be fixed thereupon by the Custodian. If and when he does so, the allottee is bound to pay the same.[Clause 3(3)] 4. He is entitled to quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the property during that period.[Clause 8] 5. He is entitled to make improvements on the land with the assent of the Custodian and is entitled to compensation in the manner provided in the Punjab Tenancy Act.[Clause 7] 6. He is entitled to exchange the whole or any part of the land for other evacuee land with the consent of the Custodian.[Clause 5] 7. He is entitled to lease the land for a period not exceeding three years without the permission of the Custodian and for longer period with his consent. But he is not entitled to transfer his rights by way of sale, gift, will, mortgage or other private contract.[Clause 4(c)] 8. His rights in the allotment are subject to the fairly extensive powers of cancellation under the Act and rules as then in force prior to the 22nd July, 1952, on varied administrative considerations and actions such as the following;[Clause 6 and subsequent rules of 1951] (a) That the allotment is contrary to the orders of the Punjab Government or the instructions of the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation, or of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab; (b) That the claims of other parties with respect to the land have been established or accepted by the Custodian or the Rehabilitation Authority; (c) That it is necessary or expedient to cancel or vary the terms of an allotment for the implementation of resettlement schemes and/or rules framed by the State Government; or for such distribution amongst displaced persons as appears to the Custodian to be equitable and proper; (d) That it is necessary or expedient to cancel or vary the terms of an allotment for the preservation, or the proper administration, or the management of such property, or in the interests of proper rehabilitation of displaced persons. It is noteworthy that the powers of cancellation include the liability of the allotment to be cancelled, if it is secured by false declaration or insufficient information, and also if the allottee is convicted under the provisions of the Evacuee Property Administration Acts.[Clause 6(c) and (f)] Taking all the above incidents together as to the position of a displaced landholder to whom evacuee agricultural land has been allotted under notification of the 8th July, 1949 there can be no doubt that he is in a definitely better legal position than the allottee of other kinds of property under the Central Act XXXI of 1950 and the Central Rules of 1950, who, as already shown, is more or less in the position of a licensee." Their lordships have nowhere held that the quasi-permanent allotment did not confer any rights or was not an allotment and that the allotment is deemed to have been made when the proprietary rights are conferred after the acquisition of the evacuee property under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The judgment of their Lordships, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not help him at all in his arguments.;