BHAGWAN DAS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 04-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
-
c 
D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
; 
H 
BHAGWAN DAS 
v . 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
November 4, 1965 
. 
[K. SUBBA RAo, J. R. MuDHOLKAR AND R. s. BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953- s. 9( 1) (i)-Small Land 
Owner at commencement of Act whether ceases to be such if value or 
Income of land increases subsequently-Land whether can be re-evaluated 
for purposes of determining ~atus at time of suit-Effect of s. 19-F(b). 
The appellant was a displaced person from West Pakistan. 
In 1949 
he was allotted 42 standard acres and 11 units of land which were later 
consolidated. In 1958 claiming to be a small holder he made an applica-
tion under s. 14-A(l) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 
before the Assistant Collector for the ejectment of respondent 
No. 4 
who was a tenant of the land. 
The Assistant Collector rejected the 
app!i<:ation on the ground that because of improvements the income from 
the lands had risen considerably and consequently the land had become 
equivalent to more than 50 standard acres, and therefore the appfa:a-
tion was untenable under s. 14-A. 
In appeal the Collector held that 
since the appellant was allotted ooly 42 standard acres and 11 units he 
was entitled to be treated as a small land-holder. The Collector's order 
was upheld by the Commissioner and by the Financial Commissioner. 
The tenant thereupon 
filed a writ petition 
before the 
High Court. 
According to the High Court the status of a landlord had to be ascer-
tained as existing on the date of !he application under s. 14-A of the Act 
and not an the date of the allotment. 
Further according to the High 
Court what is 'permissible area' available to a landlord under the Act 
had also to be determined as obtaining on the date of the application for 
eviction made by the landlord. 
On this view the High Court allowed 
the tenant's writ petition. 
In appeal by special leave to this Court, 
HELD : Under the provisions of the Act the entire land held by the 
landowner in the State of Punjab on the date of the commencement of 
the Act must be evaluated as on that date and the status of the land-
owner and his surplus area must then be ascertained. If he is then found 
to be a small landowner, he continues to be so for the purpose of the 
Act, until he acquires more land and on taking into account the nlue 
of the land in terms of standard acres on the date of the acquisition, 
he is found to be a big landowner. The landowner is required to make 
the necessary reservations or selections and to give the necessary declara-
tions so that his status and the surplus area, if any, held by him may be 
so determined. If he is a small landowner at the commencement of the 
Act, his status is not altered by reason of improvements in the value of 
his land or re-allotment of land on compulsory consolidation of holdings. 
S. 19-F(b) which was introduced into the Act during the pend ency of the 
appeal clarified the position to the same effect. [514 B-D; 515 Fl 
The appellant did not acquire any land after the commencement of 
the Act. 
His status as a small landowner was not altered by reason of 
subsequent improvements or re-allotments of land on compulsory consoli-
dation of holdings. 
On the date of the application, he therefore conti-
nued to be a small landowner. The High Court was in error in holding 
that the status of the appellant should be determined by evaluating his 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
land in terms of standard acres on the dates of the application for evic-
A 
tion. 
(515 H; 516 A-BJ 
Per Mudholkar J : Provisions relating to the valuation of lands under 
the Act are to be found in s. 19-F(a) and 19F(b). The former did not 
apply to the present case as it applies only to the ascertainment of 
'surplus area' held by a landowner at the commencement of the Act; the 
appellant held only 'permissible area' and no 'surplus area' at all. Under 
s. 19-F(b) fresh evaluation of land can take place "at any time" but the 
B 
power under that section is exercisable only in the context of special cir-
cumstances, that is to say, where the landlord obtains land after the 
commencement of the Act by inheritance, bequest or gift. These special 
circumstances did not exist in the present case. (519 H; 520 H; 521 B, 
DJ 
When the provisions of s. 19F are thus not attracted, the Revenue 
Assistant before whom an application under s. 14-A for ejectmenl of a 
tenant is made by a landlord, is not entitled to evalu

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