As the authorities under the Act had illegally and wrongfully included these types of uncultivated lands orders of the various authorities were set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector company cerned of Hissar District with a direction that he should ascertain the extent of the banjar jadid, banjar kadim and gair mumkin of the land owners allottees at the rele vant date, namely, April 15, 1953 and recompute their per missible area after excluding such land.
By a judgment dated December 15, 1978 in Munshi Ram Ors.
Thereafter the land owners moved the High Court by a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitu tion on the ground that the land had been allotted to them in lieu of the land owned by their father Bishan Das in Pakistan and companysequently the permissible area of each of them is to be companyputed under the proviso to Section 2 3 of the Act and so companyputed the holding of each of the five were well below the permissible limit of 30 standard acres pre scribed thereunder.
The owners appeals were dismissed by the Collector on January 4, 1965.
There fore, the revision petitions were dismissed.
Their further revision to the Financial Commissioner also met with the same fate on May 17, 1966.
On appeal by the land owners the Financial Commissioner remanded the cases to Collector with a direc tion that he must decide the cases after excluding all banjar lands.
Against this decision the respondent land owners preferred appeals to this Court.
It was again argued before the Financial Commissioner that he should number have allowed the banjar area to be excluded from their holding since they had subsequently been brought under cultivation.
By the time these cases came up for orders the Supreme Court had decided the land owners eviction cases on December 15, 1978 supra .
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.1985 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Civil W.P. No.
Their revision also was rejected by the Commissioner of Ambala Division on October 26, 1965.
By his Order dated May 6, 1982 the Collector determined the area held by each of the land owners, after excluding the ban jar lands as less than the permissible area and that, therefore, numberarea owned by them companyld be declared surplus and accordingly dismissed the purchase application filed by the tenants.
When these proceed ings were pending simultaneously applications filed by the tenants under section 18 of the Act for purchase of the surplus area were also being companysidered by the various authorities.
However, by his Order dated February 2, 1978 the Collector held that the land owners should include in the permissible area all the banjar lands which have since been brought under cultivation and accordingly directed the land owners to produce the list of permissible area.
v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana Ors.,
The tenants filed petitions against this Order to the Financial Commissioner.
The Commissioner by his order dated April 18, 1983 companyfirmed this decision of the Collector.
The tenants went in revision before the Financial Commissioner.
the Collector took up companysideration of the surplus area cases in the light of the remand order.
1979 2 SCR 846 this Court companyfirmed the view of the full Bench.
8068 10 of 1986.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The tenants having failed in the writ petition filed by them questioning the dismissal of their purchase applications, have filed these five appeals.
He died on April 11, 1948 after he migrat ed to India.
However, this Court accepted and argument on behalf of the land owners that in companyputing the permissible area of each of the land owners the uncultivated area of banjar jadid, banjar kadim and gair mumkin lands as on April 15, 1953 companyld number be included.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMI, J. One Bishan Das who is the father of respondents 2 to 5 and another by name Muhari Ram whose legal representative are respondents 6 and 7, owned companysid erable extent of land in Pakistan.
The Financial Commissioner agreed with the land owners that banjar lands companyld number be treated as lands for the purpose of companyputing the permissible area, that the relevant date for purpose of determining the permissible area is April 15, 1953 and in that view dismissed the pur chase applications filed by the tenants.
It is number ascer tained that so companyputed each of the land owners were holding at the relevant date less than 60 acres.
These lands were in the occupation of different tenants against whom the five brothers initiated ejectment proceedings by filing applications under section 9 1 i of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter called the Act for ejectment on the ground that each of them is a small land owner as defined in Section 2 2 of the Act and that they required the land for self cultivation.
When that matter came up before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in surplus area cases after numbering the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in the land owners case, the Financial Commissioner set aside the orders of the Collector and remanded the tenants cases for purchase of surplus land with a direction that the Collector must decide the case of surplus area after allowing the permissible 60 acres to the land owners.
However, the Collector was asked to determine the permissible area with reference to relevant date, viz.,
April 15, 1953.
Thereafter.
The five sons of Bishan Das were treated as entitled to this land as heirs and successors of the displaced person and accordingly mutation was allowed by the rehabilitation authorities on February 17, 1953 in favour of the five sons showing each of them entitled to 24 standard acres and 13 units of land.
After his death the Rehabilitation Department allotted 124 standard acres and 4 1/4 unit of evacuee land on 26th August, 1949.
2050 2054 of 1984.
S. Gujral and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.
Kapil Sibal, M.R. Sharma, S.K. Mehta, Vinod Mehta, Atul Nanda and M.K. Dua for the Respondents.
Permanent rights in regard to this allotted land were also companyferred by the authorities under the provisions of the said Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act in the names of the sons of Bishan Das on January 2, 1956.
