LAJPAT RAJ AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 24-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
590 
LAJPAT RAJ AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
April 24, 1981 
[A.D. KOSHAL AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (JO of 1953) Ss. 5, 5A and 5-B and Punjab 
Security of Land Tenure Rules 1956 Rule 4 and Form E-lntimation by landlord 
in Form £-Whether amounts to selection of permissible area under S,. 5-B(l)-
Prescribed authori1y whether can after the same. 
Respondent No. 3, a displaced J)erson from Pakistan, was allotted more 
than 60 standard acres of land. Out of this land he made an oral gift of some 
land in lieu of maintenance to his wife, respondent No. 4, who sold that land to 
the appellants. 
D 
In the proceedings for declaration of the surplus area of the land owned by 
E 
G 
H 
respondent No. 3 the Special Collector included the land sold to the appellants 
in the "select area" of Respondent No. 3, The appeal of Respondent No. 3 to 
the Commissioner was dismissed as time-barred and this order was upheld in 
revision by the Financial Commissioner. 
A single Judge dismissed his petition under Article 226. In appeal, a 
Division Bench held that the order of the Special Collector, directing a variation 
in the reservation made by respondent No. 3 without his consent was not only 
contrary to the povisions of the Act but was without jurisdiction and a nullity in 
as much as the Act vested no power of such variation in the Collector. 
Jn the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant, 
that : (I) the admission to the effect that responden.t No. 3 had intimated his 
reserved area in Form E to the Collector before gifting the land to his wife was 
made before the High Court on behalf of the appellants on the basis of some 
misconception on the part of their counsel, that actually no such reservation was 
ever made and that the admission could at best be interpreted to mean that res-
pondent No. 3 had sent an intimation in Form E to the Special Collector detailing 
therein the area selected by him as his permissible ar.::a in pursuance of the pro-
visions of sub-section (1) of section 5-B of the Act, and (2) If no reservation was 
made by respondent No. 3 the whole basis of the impugned judgment falls and 
the Collector would have jurisdiction to amend the permissible area of respon-
dent No. 3 by way of adjustment of the equities arising in favour of the appel-
lants. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : Jn assuming that respondent No. 3 had intimated his reservation 
"in pursuance of sub-s~ction (I) of section 5, the High Court was in error 
)r-
y 
}. .. 
-~ 
,• --
LAJPAT RAl V. PUNJAB 
591 
and the case had to be decided on the basis of the factual position that 
respondent No. 3 had failed to make any reservation under that sub-section but 
that he had made a selection in Form E in pursuance of the provision.s of sub-sec-
tion (I) of section 5-B. [600 H-601A] 
The inclusion of the land in question in the surplus area of respondent 
No. 3 does not effect the right of ownership of the appellants. [604 A] 
1. (a) Reservation of land was envisaged only in section 5(1) of the Act 
and had to be intimated within six months from the date of its commencement 
i.e. on or before the 15th October, 1953. [599 El 
(b) No provision was ever made in the Act or the rules framed thereunder 
A 
B 
for a reservation of land by a land-owner who had failed to send an intimation 
C 
thereof on or before the 15th October, 1953. [599 F] 
(c) What was provided by section 5-B was, that a landowner who had not 
exercised the right of reservation under the Act could select his permissible area 
and send intimation thereof in Form E to the prescribed authority within a period 
of six months from the 11th December, 1957 i. e. on or before 11th May, 1958. 
'Reservation' was something different from the 'Selection' of permissible area, 
The two terms were not only not synonymous but were mutually eKclusive. 'Selec-
tion' of permissible area was allowed only to a landlord who had not eKercised 
his right of 'reservation'. [599 G-600 A] 
(d) Form E was meant only for intimation of selection of permissible area 
under sub-section (I) of section 5B and not for reservation under sub-section (1) 
D 
of section 5 which could be made only through an intimation in the Form in 
E 
Annexure "B" to the 1953 Rules. [600 BJ 
2.(a) 'Surplus area' is arrived at by excluding the reserved area from the 
total area of a land-owner in case a reservation has been made by him lawfully. 
(Clauses (4) a

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