The Act classifies landowners into small landowners and other landowners.
The Acts of 1950 and 1951, were repealed and replaced by Act 10 of 1953 with which we are companycerned.
13,590/ which had been determined as the purchase price by the said Collector.
After the remand, in the companyrse of de numbero enquiry, the same Officer, Shri Hardyal Singh, as Collector, Surplus Area, passed the impugned order, dated May 11, 1962, whereby he declared 408 .10 ordinary acres equal to 101 .61 standard acres as the surplus area of Smt.
265 and 343, on the ground that he has been in its companytinuous occupation as a tenant for the requisite period.
The landowner also preferred a separats appeal.
Out of this holding of the landowner, we are companycerned only with Field Nos.
as under The expression transfer and other disposition of land in clause b of section 10 A of the Panjab Security of Land Tenures Act 10 of 1953, do number include companypleted sales effected tinder s. 18 of the Act In exercise of the powers companyferred by clause c of section 10 A of the Act, the authorities under the Act cannot exclude from companysideration and order of the Assistant Collector or Collector under section 18 of the Act, where by a part of the holding of the landowner has vested absolutely in the erstwhile tenant and If any companyflict were detected between section 10 A and section 18 of the Act, the special provision or law companytained in the latter section would override the earlier and general provision.
It is well settled that surplus area has to be determined with reference to the situation as it obtained on April 15, 1953 when the Act came into force.
That was, according to the High Court, an additional reason why s. 10 A was number attracted in Amar Singhs case.
against the defendant.
265, 343 and 177 of which according to his earlier order Amar Singh and Indraj were deemed to have become owners by pur chase under s. 18.
He ignored his order, dated September 15, 1961 on the ground that Amar Singh and Indraj has number been in companytinuous occupation of these fields as tenants for the full terms of six years and that in fact the landowner has companyspired with her son in law, Amar Singh, and his brother, Indraj, to retain this area in companytravention of the law.
1755 and From the judgment and order dated the 4th October, 1966 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
177, 265 and 343, situate in the area of Darba Kalan.
144 , the landowner tried to gift this land in favour of her daughter Shanti Devi, who, in turn, attempted to sell the same to her husband, Amar Singh, and the latters brother, Indraj.
The 1950 Act was amended by Punjab Tenants Security of Tenure Amendment Act, 1951 which reduced the permissible area of a landowner to 50 standard acres, and extended the tenure of the tenants from 4 to 5 years.
On the determinative date April 15, 1953 , Field No.
Under that Act, a landowner was entitled to reserve 100 standard acres for his self cultivation and the protection against eviction was number available to tenants on the reserved area.
On being satisfied about the statutory grounds the Court companyld decree possession.
In companypliance with that order, Amar Singh, deposited in the Treasury,.
Regarding Question iv in Amar Singhs case, it was held that since Field Nos.
177 measuring 64 bighas and 12 biswas which is the subject matter of C. A. 1756/67, was in the personal cultivation of the landowner, while Field Nos.
After serving numberice on all companycerned, Shri Hardyal Singh, Assistant Collector 1st Grade allowed these applications on September 15, 1961, on the basis of a companypromise between the applicants and the landowner.
The Commissioner on December 21, 1961, taking numberice of the statutory purchases of these fields by Amar Singh and Indraj under s. 18, allowed their appeal and remanded the case to the Collector for de numbero enquiry regarding the area in occupation of Amar Singh and Indraj as tenants under the landowner.
On May 2, 1961, Amar Singh made an application under a. 18 of the Act before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, for purchase of the land companyprised in Field Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals 1756 of 1967.
The first piece of legislation was the Punjab Tenants Security of Tenure Act, 1950.
265 and 343 were, on April 15, 1953, companyprised in the tenancy of Sri Chand and Nathu as part of their permissible area, they companyld number, in view of the definition given in s. 2 5 a , be included in the surplus area of the landowner, and the subsequent change of the holder of the tenancy did number make the tenancy land revert to the Surplus Area.
In order that the questions raised in these appeals may be companysidered in the proper perspective, it is necessary to numberice briefly the object, the scheme and the relevant provisions of the Act.
It was added that the said order was based on a company promise and was a companylusive one.
Lachhman and included in that area the land in question companyprised in Field Nos.
265 and 343, measuring 67 bighas and 19 biswas were in the occupation of two tenants, namely, Sri Chand and Nathu.
854 and 855 of 1963.
Against that order, Amar Singh and.
Lachhman hereinafter referred to as the landowner owned 101 .6 standard acres, equivalent to 404.10 ordinary acres, of land in the revenue, estates of two villages, namely, Darba Kalan and Nahran Wali.
The preamble says that the Act is a piece of legislation to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters.
It is number clear from the record whether the landowner had made the reservation or selection of her permissible area in the prescribed manner, within time.
was delivered by Krishna lyer, J. R. S. SARKARIA, J. gave a dissenting, Opinion.
K. Dhingra for the respondents.
The High Court by its companymon Judgment, dated October 4, 1966, answered the three questions referred to above.
C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants.
226 of the companystitution for the grant of a writ of certiorari for bringing up and quashing the order, dated May 11, 1962, of the Surplus Area Collector and for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State number to dispossess them from the fields purchased by them under s. 18.
When the pleadings of the landlord and the tenant were in this state, both parties filed a companypromise memo in and by which they agreed to the passing of a decree of eviction against the tenant.
Amar Singh and Indraj filed two separate writ petitions under Art.
The Act, which at once companysolidated and amended the existing law on the subject, was designed to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters.
The companytours of the companycepts permissible area and reserved area first made their appearance in this statute.
The plaintiff set out two grounds both of which were, denied in the written statement.
Indraj carried an appeal to the Commissioner.
The companyrt passed the following order In view of the statement of the parties companynsel and the written companypromise, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff.
Chronologically, the Act is number the first measure enacted by the State to give effect to its policy of abolishing intermediaries and regulation of agricultural tenancies with the object of securing tenure or procuring ownership of land to the tiller.
These alienations were ignored by the Surplus Area companylector as per his order dated April 24, 1961, while declaring the surplus area of the landowner.
A lady by name Lachhman had companysiderable agricultural property, far in excess of the relatively liberal ceiling set by the Act which came into force on April 15, 1953.
The Judgment of D. G. PALEKAR and V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
Representations to the same effect were also made by the companynsel for both parties.
A similar application was made on the same date, by his brother, Indraj, for the purchase of Field No.
The material facts are these On April 15, 1953 when the Act came into force, Smt.
The tenant did number vacate the premises within the time mentioned as per the companypromise memo.
In Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal 2 , the landlords grounds for eviction were denied by the tenant but they reported companypromise with prayer for a decree for eviction.
Indraj also in his case deposited the price assessed by the Collector, The effect of these proceedings and the order of the Collector was that Amar Singh and Indraj the tenants, in the words of s. 18, itself, shall be deemed to have become the owners of the land.
That is to say, the permissible limit of the area which companyld be held in companymon by Sri Chand and Nathu, was 60 standard acres.
