LexGURBAX SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GURBAX SINGH A v. STATE OF PVNJAB & ORS. October 25, 1966 (K. SUBDA RAO, C. J., R. S. BACHA WAT A~D J.M. SIJELAT, JJ.J B Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (IO of 1953), ss. 5(1), 5-B, ~(!) and 18-Ru/es 3, 5, and &-Reservation under s. 5(1), procedure for- •Reserved area' under s. 5(1) and 'selected area' under s. 5-B whether the same-Righi of tenant to buy land under s. 18 lVhen area 'selected' under s. 5-B-Ef]ect of s. 9(1)(i). The appellant was a tenant of the 3rd respondent since 1950 in respect of 49 bighas of land situated in the Punjab. He applied for the purchase of those lands under s. 18 of the Punjab Security ot Land Tenures Act, 1953, and rule 23 of the Rules made thereunder. The Assistant Collector allowed his application and on appeal the Collector confirmed the order. lbe Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner however took the view that the 3rd respondent had uot 'reserved' the land under s. 5( 1) of the Act but had 'selected' it under s. 5-B and therefore the ap- pellant had no right to purchase the land .under s. 18. The appc!lant"s writ petition against the Financial Commissioner's order \vas dismissed in limine and he came to this Court by special leave. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that (i) the Financial Com- missioner had committed an error of law in holding that the 3rd respondent had not reserved the land under s. 5( I) when in fact he had not done so; and (ii) a landlord who did not 'reserve' any area under s. 5(1) of the Act hut 'selected' the area under s. 5-B of the Act could not evict the tenant under s. 9(1) of the Act and therefore tho tenant had the right under s. 18 to purchase the said land in his p<mession for the prescribed period. HELD : (i) A valid reservation can only be made by the landowner under s. 5 (I) of the Act, read with the rules made thereunder, when the particulars contained in the application sent by him to the Patwari were verified by the latter. In the present case the landowner sent an applica- tion to the Patwari in the prescribed form, but !here was nothing on the record to show that the Patwari verified the correctness of the said parricu· Jars. In view of this it could not be said that the Financial Commission- er's finding that there was no reservation under s. 5 (I) was vitiated by an error of Jaw. [929 EJ (ii) Tho purpose of the Act must be borne in mind in oonstruing tho relevant provisions of the Act. The two concepts on which the entire Act revolves are the 'permissible area' and the 'Sufl>lus area'. Out of the per- missible area the lando\\-ner is empowered to reserve land not exceeding lhe said area and the balance is defined as surplus area. This reserva- tion is to enable the land owner to iuslain himself by self-cultivation. The object of the surplus area is to confer rightc; in respect thereof on the tenants. This twofold object of the Act cannot be achieved unless the landlord has reserved some land in the manner prescribed by s. S of the Act. But for one reason or another, if the reservation has not been made by the land-owner, s. S-B gives him another opportunity to do so. [932 C-D] Though 'reserved area' hac; been defined 1here is no definition of 'scl~cl ed area'. This indicates that the Lcgi~larure did not introduce a new con- cept of 'selected area' in 1he Act. Even a comp•trison of ss. 5 3.nd 5~8 c D E F G H A B c D E F G H GURBAX SINGH v. PUNJAB (Subba Rao. C./.) 927 shows that the process of reservation and selection are almost the same. Under s. 5 ( 1) reservation is made by selection of the land and under s. 5-B ,the landowner selects his reserved area. The expressions 'reserva· tion' and 'selection' involve the same process and indeed to some extent they are convertible for one can reserve land by selection and select land by reservation. [932 E.G] It is true that under s. 9(1) (i) a tenant of the area reserved under the Act can be evicted and there is no other clause enabling the landowner to evict a tenant from the selected area. But under s. 9 ( 1) ( i) the expression used is 'the area reserved under the Act, and not 'reserved area'. The land selected by the landowner out of the permissible area can legitimate- ly be described as the area reserved under the Act. If that be the interpre- tation of s. 5(1), s. 5-B ands. 9(1), it follows that under s. 18 the tenants cannot claim to purchase the land from the landowner fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.