MALA SINGH versus THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 15-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

MALA SINGH 
A 
v. 
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 15, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
B 
Tht Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953-Ss.2(3}, 2(5A}, 5-B, 
5-C, 10-A, 10-B, 18-Land owner-Permissible area--Proceedings for decla-
ration· of surplus area-Surplus land in occupation of tenant-Declared as 
tenant's permissible area-Utilization of surplus area-Held, land declared as C 
tenant's permissible area stood utilized by virtue of declaration. 
The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 197~Ss.12(3), 33(2)(i)-
Vesting of surplus area-Land declared as 'tenant's permissible area' under 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act-Application of tenant for purchase 
of-Introduction of Act during pendency of application-Held, application to D 
be disposed of as if Act had not been passed-S.12(3) not relevant for 
determination of question whether before coming into force of Act, surplus 
land under Punjab Act had been utilized or not. 
Worth and Phrases-Expression ''utilized" occurring in ss. 10-A and E 
10-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953--lnterpretation of. 
The appellant was a tenant in cultivatory possession of certain land 
owned by the father of respondents no. 3.5, who was a big land-owner 
under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. 
During the proceeding under the Act against the land-owner certain land F 
owned by him including that in occupation of the appellant was declared 
as surplus. On appellant's application the land in his occupation was 
reserved as tenant's permissible area. After land-owner's death in Septem· 
her 1971, respondents no. 3-5 filed an application for ejectment of the 
appellant on the ground that they had became small land-owners and as G 
such were entitled to the land possessed by the appellant as a tenant, and 
the appellant applied under s.18 of the Act Act for purchase of the said 
land. 
The Assistant Collector allowed the application of the appellant and 
rejected that of the respondents. The appeal of the respondents was H 
407 
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. . 
A 
dismissed by the Collector holding that the tenant's permissible area was 
equal to the area as utilized, which could not revert back to the respon-
dents. On revision petitions being filed by the respondents, the Commis-
sioner recommended to the Financial Commissioner to dismiss the 
application of the appellant and to redetermine the question whether the 
B 
c 
respondents were smaU land-owners. 
The Financial Commissioner accepted the revision petitions and 
held that since the application by the tenant for purchase of the land in 
dispute was made during the life time of the land-owner on whose death 
the succession opened, the question whether the heirs were small land-
owner assumed importance. He also held that in view of s.12(3) of the 
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the tentant's permissible 
area under the Act vested in the State Government with effect from the 
appointed day and, therefore, the land in dispute could not be held to be 
utilized. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the appeal by special leave. 
· D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. On January 24, 1971, when the surplus land in posses-
sion of the appellant was declared as tenant's permissible area, it stood 
utilized by virtue of the said declaration. The land-owner having died after 
E 
the utilization of the land in dispute, his successors could not take ad-
vantage of the fact that they had become small land-owners after the death 
• of their father. [ 413-B-CJ 
1.2. The expression "utilized" though not defined under the Act, has 
been used in ss. 10-A and 10-B of the Act to indicate that the surplus area 
F 
of a land-owner gets utilized on the re-settlement of tenants on the said 
land. Under the scheme of the Act the surplus area of a big land-owner 
could be used for the resettlement oflandless tenants and ss.10-A and 10-B 
of the Act provided thttt as and when it was done, the said surplus area 
was taken to be utilised. If the surplus land allotted to the landless tenants 
G stood utilized, the surplus land declared as tenant's permissible area 
would also be considered to be utilized. [412-G-H, 413-A] 
1.3. The Financial Commissioner erred in relying on s.12(3) of the 
Haryana Act and holding that the land in possession of the appellant was 
not utilised. The said section is not relevent for determining the question 
H as to whethe

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