Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) THE Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the measure of the permissible area which can be retained by a landowner and the balance of the area in excess of the permissible area so prescribed has to be declared as surplus and can be utilized for settling displaced tenants or landless tenants. In case of allotment to the displaced persons, the permissible area allotted to them by the Rehabilitation Department should not be in excess of 50 Standard Acres. Section 2(5) of the Act defines Standard Acre as follows: (5) 'Standard acre' means a measure of area convertible into ordinary acres of any class of land according to the prescribed scale with reference to the quantity of yield and quality of soil. Rule 2 of the Rules made under the Act provides as under:
(2.) CONVERSION of ordinary acres into standard acres. - -The equivalent, in standard acres, of one ordinary acre of any class of land in any assessment circle, shall be determined by dividing by 16, the valuation shown in Annexure 'A' to these rules for such class of land in the said assessment circle. Annexure 'A' attached to the Rules gives the valuation statement in respect of different circles of various districts. The classification of land is shown differently in different districts and valuations also differ for each class in different assessment circles. So far as District of Karnal is concerned, the land has been classified as follows: Chahi and Abi, Chahi, Nehri, Nehri non - perennial or other Nehri and Nehri Inundation and unirrigated. The valuation for unirrigated land is shown as 9. 2. Sant Singh Nalwa, a displaced person was allotted land which in terms of standard acres, as calculated by the Rehabilitation Department, came to 63 standard acres and 8 1/4 units in village Mar -ghain, and another area of 19 standard acres and 5 1/4 units in Garden Colony in Jundla. The area of the Garden Colony was left out of consideration for the purpose of declaring the surplus area, but out of the remaining land in village Marghain, 50 standard acres were left as his permissible area, while the balance of 13 standard acres and odd units were declared as surplus. Sant Singh Nalwa went in appeal to the higher authorities against this order of the Collector, dated 13th of January, 1963. His main grievance was that out of the land allotted to him, 294 Bighas and 18 Biswas were Sailab, "which land was flooded by river Jamuna every year, being only about a mile from the bed of the river Jamuna and consequently was an inferior type of land and has been wrongly equated with the Barani land and valuated as unirrigated area." It was urged that whereas in Annexure 'A' relating to other districts, "Sailab" has been separately classified and given a valuation, 'Sailab' has not been shown as a separate category as regards Karnal district. Sant Singh Nalwa, having failed before the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (Civil Writ 270 of 1964), challenging the vires of Annexure 'A' to Rule 2 relating to Karnal District. The learned single Judge referred to para 259 of Sir James M. Douie, Punjab Settlement Manual, 4th Edition, wherein the classification of land is mentioned as below: (a) Barani - -dependent on rainfall; (b) Sailab - -flooded or kept permanently moist by rivers ; (c) Abi - -watered by lift from tanks, Jhils, or streams. This term is also applicable to land watered from springs: (d) Nahri - -irrigated from canals.... (e) Chahi - -watered from well.... The learned author then went on to say as follows: The first two classes fall under the general head of 'unirrigated', and the last three under that of 'irrigated' land. Paragraph 454, which deals with the diversity of Sailab, particularly mentions how Sailab land at one place may be inferior quality than the Sailab land at another place. This paragraph runs as follows: The treatment of Sailab land in assessment in different parts of the province must, therefore, be very diverse. Along the upper reaches of the Jamuna, where the rainfall is copious and the river deposit sandy, flooded land has been rated much below and dependent only on the rainfall. The learned single Judge felt that although both Sailab and Barani lands may be categorised broadly as unirrigated land, yet the Sailab and Barani lands belong to the species widely differing in yield. Learned Judge observed as follows: While unirrigated land may be the genus, Sailab land is a species widely differing in yield as well as in quality from the other species of unirrigated land viz., Barani land. The learned Judge then went on to observe as follows: Even out of the species of Sailab land, the land of this area in Tehsil Karnal near the Jamuna, has to be rated far below the Sailab land of other areas. Nothing could be more arbitrary than to equate, in this District, Sailab land with unirrigated land dependent only on rainfall. Conversely, the omission to place it in a class separate from Barani unirrigated land of Karnal District, amounts to a callous disregard of the criteria laid down in Section 2(5) of the Act. In coming to this conclusion, the learned single Judge relied on Waryam Singh v. The Collector (Agrarian Reforms), Sangrur and others, I.L.R. (1964) 1 P&H 767 :, 1963 P.L.J. 135, as well as on the observations of the Supreme Court in Shivdev Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Anr. : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 365. In view of the above, valuation statement (Annexure 'A') appended to Rule 2, of 1953 Rules relating to Karnal District, in so far as it did not specify rates for evaluating Sailab land as a distinct class was held to be ultra vires the Act. The State Government, feeling aggrieved by this decision, filed this Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) IT was not denied that Sailab and Barani lands form two different species of the irrigated land. The argument on behalf of the State, however, was that all that is required under Rule 2 is that taking into consideration the quantity of the produce and the quality of the land, its valuation is to be fixed vis a -vis a standard acre whose valuation is taken to be 16. The learned Counsel consequently argued that where the authorities concerned after taking into consideration both these matters come to a conclusion that Barani as well Sailab lands should be assigned the same value, it is not necessary to categorise them separately and give their valuation.;