PIARA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions of law have been referred to this Full Bench by a Division Bench vide orders dated Jan. 7, 1973:--

(2.) IN order to answer these questions, the legislative history of the relevant provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, may usefully be stated. In 1953, the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953, (President's act No. 8 of 1953) was promulgated. The said Act was repealed by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Chapter I of the Act deals with preliminary matters including the definition of permissible limit. Chapter II deals with the reservation of land for personal cultivation. Chapter III deals with the general rights of tenancy. Provisions of Ss. 7 and 8 of the Act before enactment of the Second Amendment Act, 1956, are as under:--

(3.) The question whether S. 8, as re--enacted, provides an additional ground of ejectment of a tenant came for consideration before this Court in Randhir Singh v. Financial Commissioner, 1970 Pun LJ 519, and it was held by learned brother P. C. Jain J. that Section 8 provides an Independent ground of eviction and a tenant inducted after the enforcement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, can be ejected after the expiry of three years without proving any of the conditions specified in S. 7 of the Act. This view of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Devi Chand v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1971 Pun LJ 200. The correctness of the view taken by that Division Bench was assailed before a Division Bench in the present case and, therefore, their Lordships referred the questions of law referred to above, to a Full Bench. It may not be out of place to mention here that earlier the learned Financial Commissioners of Punjab in Dina v. Dalip Singh, (1967) 46 Lah LT 232, and Avtar Singh v. Smt. Kaki, (1968) 47 Lah LT 193, also took the same view. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Devi Chand's case (1971 Pun LJ 200) (supra ). With a view to interpret the provisions of S. 8 of the Amended Act, the legislative history of the provisions of S. 7 which provided grounds for ejectment under the Act, and subsequent amendment made under 1956 Act has to be kept in view. The relevant provisions of both the Acts have already been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. It would be seen that in the 1955 Act a tenant of a big land owner could be ejected by the landowner from the reserved area on the ground of self--cultivation. Similarly, according to the provisions of sub--section (2) of S. 7 of the 1955 Act, a landowner holding 30 standard acres or less of land could eject a tenant on the ground of personal cultivation but this could be done within a period of five years from the commencement of the President's Act, 1953. Section 8 of the 1955 Act provided that where a land--owner, who has taken possession of any land by ejecting any tenant therefrom on the ground that he requires and land for personal cultivation fails to cultivate such land personally within one year from the date on which he took possession thereof or ceases to cultivate such land personally in any year during a period of four years next following tenant may make an application to the prescribed authority for restoration of such land to him. In the Second Amendment Act 1956, S. 7--A was incorporated which dealt with the existing tenancy and according to cls. (a) and (b) of sub--section (1) of S. 7--A, a big landowner could eject a tenant from the reserved area and a smaller land--owner could also eject a tenant without there being reference to any other ground of ejectment. However, two conditions were laid down that the tenants in that case must have under personal cultivation area to the extent of 5 standard acres and in case the tenant had more than 5 standard acres in personal cultivation, he could be ejected from an area excess of 5 standard acres of land. It is no doubt true that S. 7--A deals with the tenancy subsisting at the commencement of the Second Amendment Act of 1956, but the fact remains that it allowed the big landowners qua the reserved area and the small landowners qua the area owned by them to eject the tenant from the area within the permissible limits. It would be seen from the provisions of S. 32--E of the Act that the surplus area with the big landowners vested in the State and thus every big landowner remained owner of the permissible area whereas the small land--owners also could own up to the permissible limit. Section 7--A provided additional grounds for ejectment from the reserved area or the area under permissible limit regarding the existing tenancies. It is in this background that the provisions of amended S. 8 of the Act have to be construed. It would be seen that the interpretation given to the provisions of S. 8 of the Act by the Division Bench in Devi Chand's case (supra) brings out a clear intention of the Legislature in providing that all the tenants inducted on the land after the enforcement of the Second Amendment Act of 1956, should in general terms have three years' protection from being ejected by the big landowners from their reserved area and by the small land owners from the area within their permissible limits. The proviso to S. 8 provides a few exceptions and the same being that the tenants of a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a person incapable of cultivating land by reason of physical or mental infirmity, shall not have the protection of three years.