Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of 14 writ petitions (Civil Writs No. 2274, 2328, 2334, 2335, 2336, 2337, 2338, 2339, 2340, 2341, 2342; 2343 and 2343 -A of 1967) as common questions of law and fact arise and all of them are directed against the same order of the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The first three Respondents to each writ petition are the Prescribed Authority (Assistant Collector First Grade), Bhatinda, the Collector district Bhatinda, and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. The fourth Respondent in each case is the tenant, who made the application under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), to acquire from his landowners (the Petitioners) in respect of the land comprising his tenancy the right, title and interest of the landowners. Such applications by the tenants were made in 1965.
(2.) THE dispute is about the quantum of compensation payable to the Petitioners. The applications of the tenants were decided by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhatinda, on May 31, 1966 a copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The Assistant Collector held that the Petitioners were entitled to ninety times the land revenue and the rates and cesses and that the expression "land revenue" does not include the surcharge levied under the Punjab Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 1954 Act) and the special charges levied under the Punjab Land Revenue (Special Charges) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 1958 Act). The Petitioners filed an appeal against that order before the Collector, who dismissed the same on October 18, 1966. A copy of that order is Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. The Petitioners filed a revision against that order before the Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the same on June 9, 1967. A copy of that order is Annexure 'C to the writ petition: The Petitioners then filed the present writ petitions in this Court and the sole point for determination is whether the term "land revenue" used in Section 26 of the Act includes the surcharge and the special charge under the 1954 and 1958 Acts. The tenants have contested these writ petitions without filing any returns as the point to be decided is a pure question of law with regard to the interpretation of Section 26 of the Act.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that "land revenue" has not been defined in the Act, but according to Section 2(m) this phrase has to be given the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The Punjab Land Revenue Act defines "land revenue" in Section 3(6) as under: 'land revenue' includes assigned land revenue and any sum payable in respect of land by way of quit -rent or commutation for service, to the Government or to a person to whom the Government has assigned the right to receive the payment. This definition does not help in interpreting the phrase "land revenue" as used in the Act. We have, therefore, to turn to the Punjab Tenancy Act. "Land revenue" is defined in Section 4(10) of this Act as under: 'land Revenue' means land revenue assessed under any law for the time being in force or assessable under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and includes - - (a) any rate imposed in respect of the increased value of land due to irrigation, and (b) any sum payable in respect of land, by way of quit -rent or of commutation for service, to the Government or to a person to whom the Government has assigned the right to receive the payment. This definition of "land revenue" clearly includes the surcharge levied under the 1954 Act and the special charges levied under the 1958 Act as it is not confined only to the land revenue assessable under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The 1954 Act was extended to the territories comprised in the former Patiala and East Punjab States Union by Punjab Act No. 35 of 1957. According to Section 2 of this Act, every landowner who pays land revenue in excess of ten rupees is liable to pay a surcharge thereon to the extent of one -quarter of the land revenue if the amount payable by him as land revenue does not exceed thirty rupees, and two -fifth of the land revenue where the amount payable by him exceeds thirty rupees There is a proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 2 as under: Provided that the levy of surcharge shall not have the effect of adding to the value of any Jagir or any assignment of land revenue. This proviso, in my opinion, clearly makes the intention of the legislature clear that the surcharge under this Act is to be an addition to the land revenue. If it was not to be, there was no necessity of enacting the proviso. The only effect of the proviso is that the Jagirdars or the assignees of land revenue are not able to claim the surcharge levied under this Act, which is to be recovered by the Government. Sub -section (2) of Section 2 also leads to the conclusion that the surcharge is an addition to the land revenue as it is to continue to be charged and levied so long as the assessment of the land revenue prevailing at the commencement of this Act continues to be in force. It is well known that the assessment of land revenue is made at various settlements which take place at an interval of 20 or 30 years. The legislature had felt the necessity of increasing the land revenue till reassessment is made at the next settlement and for this reason the increase was made in the manner of levying surcharge on the land revenue already being paid by the landowners. The fact that the surcharge is assessed as one -quarter or two -fifth of the land revenue, as the case may be, also shows that it is an addition to the land revenue.;