The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Their Revision was rejected by the Commissioner of Ambala Division on October 26, 1965.
On these grounds, the appellants claimed that each of them is a small land owner and as such, entitled to move for eviction of the tenant under Section 9 1 i of the Act.
The Assistant Collector, Hissar, rejected their application.
Ram Dhan, respondent 2, was in possession of the land as a tenant.
The appellants applied under Section 9 1 i of the Punjab Security of Lands Tenure Act, 1953 hereinafter called the Act for his 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 require the land for self cultivation.
With this reasoning, the Full Bench dismissed the appeal.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 30 8 67 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No.
Munshi Ram and his four brothers filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was eventually heard by a Full Bench.
Prior to it, a mutation was allowed by the Rehabilitation Authorities on February 17, 1953 in favour of the appellants, herein, showing each of them entitled to 24 standard acres and 13 units of land.
Their companytention was that the land had been allotted to them in lieu of the land abandoned by their father, Bishan Das, in Pakistan, and companysequently, the permissible area of each of them is to be companyputed under Proviso to Section 2 3 of the Act, and so companyputed, the holding of each of the five would be well below the permissible limit of 30 standard acres prescribed thereunder.
47 of 1967.
The appellants then moved the High Court by a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging that the aforesaid orders of the Assistant Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, were illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
Permanent rights in regard to this allotted land were companyferred by the Managing Officer on behalf of the President of India under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, in the names of the sons of Bishan Das on January 2, 1956.
He died on April 11, 1948, after his migration to India, leaving behind his five sons, who are the appellants before us.
It was further companytended that since the allotment was made in standard acres, and number in ordinary acres, the permissible area of each of the appellants would be 30 standard acres, numberwithstanding the fact that on companyversion into ordinary acres, it exceeds 60 ordinary acres.
Their further Revision to the Financial Commissioner, also, met the same fate on May 17, 1966.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It arises out of these facts Bishan Das was a displaced person from West Pakistan, where he owned a companysiderable area of agricultural land.
After Bishan Dass death, the Rehabilitation Department allotted 124 standard acres and 1/4 unit of evacuee land in his Bishan Das name on August 26, 1949.
Their appeal was dismissed by the Collector, on January 4, 1965.
277 of 1969.
K. Bisaria for Respondent No.
Naunit Lal for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal on certificate is directed against a Full Bench judgment of the High Court at Chandigarh, rendered on November 22, 1968 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Appeal set down ex parte for RR 1 and 3.
50/67.
