MUNSHI RAM & ORS. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & PRS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 846 · Decided: 15-12-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
846 
MUNSHI RAM & ORS. 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & PRS. 
December 15, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] 
Punjab Security of Lands Tenure Act, 1953- s. 2(3) scope of-"Perniis-
sible area" how computed-Appellants sons of a displaced person from Pakistan 
-S. 2(3) if applicable to heirs of a deceaised displaced person-Banjar land 
if should be excluded in computing "permissible area". 
In relation to a land-owner or a tenant, the term "permissible area" as 
defined in s. 2(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 means 
thirty standard acres and where such thirty standard acres on being converted 
into ordinary acres exceed sixty acres such sixty acres, 
Clause (ii) (b) of 
the proviso enacts that if a displaced person who has been allotted land in 
excess of thirty standard acres but less than fifty standard acres, the permissible 
area shall be equal to his allotted area. 
The Explanation states that for the 
purposes of determining the permissible area of a displaced person the pro-
visions of proviso (ii) shall not apply to the heirs and successors of the dis-
placed person to whom land is allotted. 
The appellants' father, a displaced person, owned considerable agriculturill 
land in West Pakistan. 
After bis migration to India and subsequent death, 
in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan 124 standard acres \\'e"·e allott~d in 
E 
his name. Mutation of the property was sanctioned in favour of the appellants 
and permanent rights \Vere conferred in their names. 
F 
G 
ff 
Alleging that they were 'small land-owners' as defined in the Act, and tbnt 
/ 
they required the land for self-cultivation they applied for ejectment of the 
n spr1ndent No. 2 who at that time was in possession of the land. 
The Assistant Collector, rejected their request, their appeal to the Collector 
was dismissed Hnd revision application to Commi5'iioncr and Financial Co1n-
missioner were also rejected. 
In their writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution they contended 
that if the "permissible areai. is computed under pro\'iso (ii) to s. 2(3) of the 
Act, the holciing of each of them 
would 
be below the 
permissible limit of 
thirty standard acres; that since the allotment was made in standard acres, the 
'permissible area' of each of them would be 30 standard acres notwithstanding 
that on conversion into ordinary acres it exceeds sixty ordinary acres. 
A 
single Judge of the High Court dismissed their writ petition. 
On appeal, the Full Bench of the High Court helJ that since the appellants 
were not displaced persons, the concession of an enhanced permissible area 
under proviso (ii) to s. 2(3) was not available to them and their permissible 
area would be sixty ordinary acres, each, and since the holding of each of 
them exceeded sixty ordinary acres they ,were not 'small land-owners' and so 
could not seek ejectment of the tenant. 
• • 
• 
) 
.. 
j 
MUNSHI RAM v. FIN. COMMR. (Sarkaria, !.) 
847 
On further appeal to this Court it was contended, ( 1) that the words' "such 
~thirty standard acres'' in the definition exclude conversion into ordinary acres 
where the area already held in standard acres falls below thirty standard acres; 
(2) that they were small land owners because each of them was holding only 
24 standard acres and the Explanation to s. 2(3) had no application to them 
;because the land was allotted to their father who was a displaced person; and 
(3) that while computing the "permissible 1rea" uncultivated Banjar land 
·-which does not fall \Vithin the definition of 
1'land" for the purposes of the 
1953 Act had wrongly been included. 
Rejecting contentions (I) and (2), 
HELD : 1. The language of s. 2(3) proclaims in no uncertain tenns the 
'legislativ¢ in1perative that no land owner or t~nant shall hold land exceeding 
30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres. The rwords "such thirty acres" occur-
, ring in the definition cannot be construed to IiPiit the conversion into ordinary 
. acres only to a case where the holding is thi~·ty standard acres and not less. 
The concept of standard acre being "a mdasure of area convertible into 
. ordinary acres of any class of land 
accordi~g to the prescribed scale with 
reference to the quantity of yield and quality of soil" bas been introduced 
iu the definition of "permissible area" to emphasise the qualitative aspect of 
a landholding and the maximum limit of sixty acres delineates its quantitative 
'aspect. [850 G, Fl 

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