AJMER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 17-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AJMER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1989 
(LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
The Punjab Security & Land Tenures Act 1953, Sections 3, 4, 5A 
to 5C-Small Land owner-Right to reservation-Whether arises. 
These appeals are by tenants against the land-owners. 
One Bishan Das owned considerable extent of land in Pakistan. 
C 
He died on April 11, 1948 after he bad migrated to India. After his 
death the Rehabilitation Department allotted 124 standard acres and 
4·1/4 units of evacuee land to Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 his sons and to 
Nos. 6 & 7 who were the legal heirs of one his deceased son. Each of 
the five sons was deemed entitled to 24 standard acres and 13 units of 
D 
land and accordingly mutuation in respect of each of them was allowed 
by the Rehabilitation Department. Permanent rights in regard to the 
allotted land were also conferred by the authorities on the said respon· 
dents. Thereupon the said respondents-land owners initiated ejectment 
proceedings under sec. 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures 
Act, 1953 against the tenants who were then in occupation of the Lands 
E 
in qnestion on the ground that each one of them was a small land owner 
as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and that they required the land for 
self cultivation. The Assistant Collector, Hissar rejected the applica-
tion. Their appeals were dismissed by the Collector on 4.4.1965. Their 
revision preferred before the Commissioner, Ambala Division was also 
rejected. Land-owners' further revision to Financial Commissioner also 
F 
failed whereupon they filed a Writ Petition before the High Court on 
the ground that the land had been allotted to them in lieu of the land 
owned by their father in Pakistan and consequently the permissible 
area of each of them was to be computed under the proviso to section 
2(3) of the Act, and so computed the holding of each of the five was well 
below the permissible limit of 30 standard acres prescribed thereunder. 
G 
The High Court dismissed the Writ petition. 
Respondents preferred Letters Patent Appeals wherein the High 
Court held that in view of the Explanation to the proviso to section 2(3), 
the heirs and successors of the displaced per~ons to whom lands were 
allotted could not claim the benefit of the proviso and that the permissi-
H 
209 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
hie area under the substantive part of section 2(3) was 60 ordinary 
A acres. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The respondents preferred appeals to this Court. This Court con-
firmed the view of the High Court. f(owever this Court accepted an 
argument advanced on behalf of the respondents-land owners that in 
computing the permissible area of each of the laud-owner, the 
uncultivated area of "banjar Jadid", "banjar Kadim" and "gair 
Mumkin" lands as on April 15, 1953 could not be included.' As the 
authorities had wrongly included these types of lands, their orders were 
set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector concerned with a 
direction that should ascertain the extent of "banjar Jadid'', "banjar 
Kadim" and "gair mumkin" lands of the Respondents allotted as on 
15.4.1953. When these proceedings were pending, applications filed by 
the appellants-tenants under section 18 of the Act for purchase of surp-
lus area also came to be considered by the authorities. When the matter 
came up before the Financial Commissioner he set aside the orders of 
the Collector and remanded the appellants-tenants cases for purchase 
of surplus land with a dn'ection that the Collector must decide the cases 
of surplus area after allowing the permissible 60 acres to the land 
owners. In a subsequent proceedings, the Financial Commissioner 
directed the Collector to determine the permissible area after excluding 
all "hanjar lands". The tenants filed Petitions ,llefore the Financial 
Commissioner against the order. However by the time these cases came 
up for orders, this Court had decided the land-owners' eviction cases 
viz in Munshi Ram & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & 
Ors., [1979) 2 SCR 846. 
As such the revision Petitions were dismissed and the Collector 
was asked to determine the permlssible area with reference to relevant 
F 
date viz., April 15, 1953. By bis order dated 6.5.82 the Collector 
accordingly determined the area held by each of the land oWller after 
excluding the "banjar lands", as less tbau the permlssible area and 
found that no area owned by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.