- (1.) This writ petition is directed against two connected orders filed as Annexures 'E' and 'F' with the writ petition passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on the same day, that is, 2nd September, 1967. The Financial Commissioner by these orders dismissed the application of the petitioner for purchase of land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) and accepted the revision petition of Basant Dass respondent No. 1 thereby ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute.
(2.) There has been going on litigation between the parties in different phases. The petitioner claims that he is a tenant of 146 Kanals of land situate in village Bhuna, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar, since the year 1950, when this land was occupied by him as a tenant alongwith other land there allotted to Bawa Hari Dass. It is not denied that Basant Dass respondent No. 1 inherited this land as Chela from his Guru Balak Dass who died in the year 1957 and had got the same from Bawa Hari Dass to whom it had originally been allotted. After the death to Bawa Hari Dass, Balak Dass was allotted 49 Standard Acres and 1-1/2 Units of land and it was alleged that he made some reservation in the year 1953 after the coming into force of the Act. There is a dispute raised by the petitioner that this reservation is a forgery but it is not necessary to go into that question. Be that as it may, respondent No. 1 having inherited the property of Balak Dass deceased was entitled to make a fresh selection under Section 19-B of the Act. It appears that no reservation was made by this respondent till ultimately, the Collector took action under sub-section (2) of Section 5-B and selected certain Khasra numbers which respondent No. 1 was entitled to retain and declared 36.67 ordinary acres of land owned by him as surplus area vide his order dated 10th February, 1964, filed as annexure 'G' with the writ petition. Birbal petitioner preferred an appeal against this order of 10th February, 1964, before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who rejected the same by his order dated 17th August, 1965, a copy of which had not been filed by the petitioner but has been placed on record by respondent No. 1 as annexure 'R-1'. It was conceded by the petitioner before the Commissioner that respondent No. 1 had no area under his self-cultivation. Section 5-B inserted by Section 3 of Punjab Act No. 46 of 1957 is reproduced hereinunder in extenso : "5-B (1) A landowner who has not exercised his right of reservation under this Act, may select his permissible area and intimate the selection to the prescribed authority within the period specified in Section 5-A and in such form and manner as may be prescribed : Provided that a landowner who is required to furnish a declaration under Section 5-A shall intimate his selection alongwith that declaration. (2) If a landowner fails to select his permissible area in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may, subject to the provisions of Section 5-C, select the parcel or parcels of land which such person is entitled to retain under the provisions of this Act : Provided that the prescribed authority shall not make the selection without giving the landowner concerned an opportunity of being heard."
(3.) There are two sets of Rules made under the Act, namely, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953, and Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Rules of the year 1956 are supplementary to those of the year 1953 and both have to be read together. Rule 6 of 1956 Rules provides that whenever an assessment of surplus area of landowners and tenants is to be made, the Patwari concerned shall prepare statements, in duplicate, in Forms 'D' and 'DD' appended to the Rules. Form 'D' has a column No. 8 which requires that the name and parentage of tenants and particulars of area with each of them must be stated. The Collector, Surplus Area, Hissar, before passing order of 10th February, 1964, had Form 'D' prepared. I have perused the record and in this Form 'D', the Patwari made a note on 30th January, 1964, that he could not find out the tenants, if any, occupying the land in the years 1952-53 as the relevant Khasra Girdawaris stood torn. The tenants who were in occupation of the land on the date of coming into force of the Act were being described by the revenue officials as Muzaria Derina (old tenants). Respondent No. 1 had appeared before the revenue officials and made a statement that there were certain old tenants holding about 15 acres of land and they were Om Parkash and others. When he appeared before these officials he gave a list of Khasra numbers which he wanted to be reserved for him by the Collector under Section 5-B of the Act. It is alleged that no notice of these proceedings was issued to the petitioner. The note of the Patwari of course indicated that there was no tenant who could have any legal rights under the Act and was occupying the land in the years 1952-53. The order as referred to above was consequently made by the Special Collector on 10th February, 1964, making selection for Respondent No. 1 under Section 5-B, and the area so selected included the one claimed to be occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. On the basis of the selection so made, respondent No. 1 made an application for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act on the allegation that the land occupied by him (Petitioner) was included in his reserved area. The application of the petitioner for purchase of the land was already pending before the Assistant Collector and both these applications were disposed of together by an order passed on 20th June, 1966.;