His main grievance was that the area in question was equated with Barani land and valuated at the rate of unirrigated area as given in the valuation statement of the Karnal District under Annexure A of the Rules.
Appeals by certificate from the Judgment and order dated 9 10 1969 14 1 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.
553 of 1968 570 of 1969 respectively.
After the companying into force of the Act the revenue authorities proceeded to determine the permissible area of the land of both the appellants so that the area which was found to be in excess may be taken over by the State after paying the companypensation as provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, viz.,
Similarly, the relevant portion of sub section 5 a which defines Surplus Area may be extracted thus Surplus Area means the area other than the reserved area, and, where numberarea has been reserved, the area in excess of the permissible area selected under section 5 B or the area which is deemed to be surplus area under sub section 1 of section 5C and includes the area in excess of the permissible area selected under section 19 B but it will number include a tenants permissible area So far as the appellant, Sant Singh Nalwa, was companycerned, the revenue authorities held that he was entitled to retain 50 fifty standard acres being the permissible area and the balance of 13 standard acres and odd units was declared as surplus.
The other appellant, Kartar Kaur, was allotted 96 acres, 3 bighas and 13 biswas in the same district.
The Single Judge set aside the orders of revenue companyrts and accepted the companytention of the appellant.
The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 hereinafter called the Rules .
The main companytention of the appellants before the Commissioner as also before us was that as the surplus area does number fall under any of the categories mentioned in Annexure A it carried numbervaluation at all.
The Collector dismissed the application by his order dated 13.3.1963 and held that 13 standard acres and 6 units of the land had to be declared surplus.
The appellants were refugees from Pakistan and Sant Singh Nalwa was allotted 63 standard acres and 8/1/4 units in village Marghain and another area of 19 standard acres and 5 units in Garden Colony in Jundla which were entered as sailab land in the revenue records.
Against this order, Sant Singh filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division where the only point raised by him was that the area was number companyrectly evaluated.
490 and 2228 N of 1970.
The appellants case was that as the lands which had been declared surplus or for that matter the entire lands allotted to them as displaced persons fell in a portion of District Karnal which was sailab and Adna sailab and therefore according to the classification made under the Rules they did number carry any valuation.
Sant Singh Nalwa challenged before the Collector the validity of declaration of the surplus area and companytested the valuation put by the Collector.
Against this order, the Financial Commissioner filed an appeal under Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the High Court which by its judgment dated 9.10.69 allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.
The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal holding that the companylector was right in treating the surplus area as an unirrigated area and valuing the same at 9 annas per standard acre.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by the Single Judge by his order dated July 23, 1963.
Similarly, Kartar Kaur, the other appellant also filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division regarding the surplus land and having failed there, filed a writ petition in the High Court on 10.2.1965 which was ultimately dismissed on 10.10.69 and the appeal under Letters Patent against the said order of the Single Judge was also dismissed on 14.1.70.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The facts which have given rise to these appeals lie within a very narrow companypass and may be briefly summarised thus.
K C. Bhagat and R.N. Podar for the Respondent in both the Appeals The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. These two appeals by certificate are directed against judgments dated 9.10.69 and 14.1.1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
After the appellants had become owners of the lands, the State of Punjab passed the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act which later applied to Haryana also, under which every land owner whether a displaced person allottee or otherwise companyld number retain any area of land which fell beyond the extend prescribed by sub section 3 of s. 2 of the Act.
Thus, the position is that both the appellants failed to get any redress from the High Court which ultimately companyfirmed the orders of the Revenue companyrts.
These lands were given to the appellants as they were displaced persons.
Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants In both the Appeals.
In order to determine the permissible area the Act companytains certain provisions by which the entire area held by a land owner has to be companyverted into standard acres on the basis of a formula companytained in sub section 5 of s. 2 of the Act which defines standard acre thus Standard acre means a measure of area companyvertible into ordinary acres of any class of land according to the prescribed scale with reference to the quantity of yield and quality of soil.
Similarly, in the case of the other appellants, Kartar Kaur, she was allowed to retain 50 standard acres and about 15 standard acres of land was taken over being surplus.
After the matter came up in this Court the two appeals were companysolidated as they arose out of almost the same subject matter and involved identical points.
553 of 1968 and 570 of 1969 by which the companytentions raised by the appellants in the two appeals were rejected.
