1. Tenant's application to purchase land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act — Dispute over whether land was reserved or selected area. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 287
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
S. Gurbax Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 708 of 1964, dated 25-10-1966.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Bhawani Lal and Mohan Lal Aggarwal, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. &opal Singh, Advocate, for Respondent
Advocates:
BHAVANI LAL, Gopal Singh, MOHAN LAL AGRAWAL
BHAVANI LAL, Gopal Singh, MOHAN LAL AGRAWAL
The court held that "selected area" under Section 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is equivalent to "reserved area" under Section 5(1). Consequently, such land is not "surplus area," and tenants cannot exercise their right to purchase it under Section 18.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - Sections 2(3), 2(4), 2(5-A), 5(1), 5-B, 9(1), and 18(1) - Right of tenant to purchase land - Reserved area vs. Selected area - Whether area selected under Section 5-B can be equated with reserved area under Section 5(1) - If area selected under Section 5-B is treated as reserved area, tenant is not entitled to purchase the land under Section 18. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Purpose of the Act - To provide permissible area for self-cultivation, security of tenure to tenants, and ascertain surplus areas for re-settlement - The concepts of "reservation" and "selection" are convertible and involve the same process; Section 5-B provides a second opportunity for land-owners to reserve their permissible area. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
A tenant in continuous occupation of land for over six years applied to purchase the land under the relevant Act. While lower authorities initially allowed the purchase, higher revenue authorities held that the land-owner had selected the area under the provision for selection of permissible area, thereby making it reserved area and ineligible for purchase by the tenant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the land-owner had not validly reserved the land under the initial reservation provision due to lack of verification by the revenue official. However, the land was selected under the subsequent provision for selection of permissible area.
Issues: Whether the "selected area" under Section 5-B of the Act is equivalent to the "reserved area" under Section 5(1), and consequently, whether a tenant has the right to purchase such selected area under Section 18.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "reservation" and "selection" are essentially the same process. Section 5-B was intended to provide relief to land-owners who failed to make a reservation under Section 5(1). Therefore, land selected under Section 5-B constitutes "area reserved under the Act," which excludes it from being "surplus area" and prevents the tenant from exercising the right to purchase it under Section 18.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether land was reserved under Section 5(1) — Whether area selected under Section 5-B equates to reserved area, affecting tenant's right to purchase under Section 18. (Para 3 )
3. Reservation requires Patwari verification — Section 5-B provides a second opportunity for reservation — Reserved area and selected area involve the same process of selection for self-cultivation. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
4. Area selected under Section 5-B is equivalent to reserved area under the Act, thereby excluding it from the tenant's right to purchase under Section 18. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 10 )
6. Does selection of land under Section 5-B equate to reserved area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act?
Yes. The court held that reservation and selection involve the same process. Section 5-B allows landowners who failed to reserve land under Section 5(1) another opportunity to select their reserved area for self-cultivation. (Para 8 )
7. Can a tenant purchase land that has been selected by the landowner under Section 5-B?
No. Because area selected under Section 5-B is equivalent to reserved area, it is not considered surplus area and therefore cannot be purchased by the tenant under Section 18. (Para 8 )
8. What is the requirement for a valid reservation of land under Section 5(1) of the Act?
A valid reservation requires the landowner to intimate the selection in the prescribed form to the Patwari, and the reservation is only effective once the Patwari verifies the correctness of the particulars. (Para 4 , 5 )
9. Does Section 9(1)(i) allow the eviction of tenants from area selected under Section 5-B?
Yes. Section 9(1)(i) permits the eviction of tenants from the area reserved under the Act, which includes land selected by the landowner out of the permissible area under Section 5-B. (Para 8 )
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, CJI. : This appeal by special leave raises the question of the true scope of the expression "selected area" within the meaning of S. 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 195.3, (Act No. 10 of 1953), as amended by Act No. 46 of 1957, hereinafter called the Act.
2. The facts are not in dispute and they are as follows: The appellant is a tenant under respondent No. 3 since the year 1950 in respect of 49 bighas of land. As he was in continuous occupation of the said land for a period of 6 years, he applied under S. 18 of the Act and R. 23 of the Rules made thereunder in the prescribed form to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Fazilka, for the purpose of the said land. The Assistant Collector held-it does not appear that the 3rd respondent questioned the right of the appellant to purchase the said land-that the appellant was entitled to purchase the land and determined the price payable by the appellant to the 3rd respondent in a sum of Rs. 20.630 and ordered that the said amount was payable in 10 equal six-monthly instalments. On appeal to the Collector. Ferozepure the order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed. On a revision petition filed by the 3rd respondent before the Additional Commissioner, Jullunder, the said Commissioner took the view that the said area was selected by the 3rd respondent under S. 5-B of the Act and, therefore, the appellant had no right to purchase the same under S. 18 of the Act. On that view, he submitted the case to the Financial Commissioner) Punjab, who, agreeing with the view expressed by the Additional Commissioner, Jullunder, held that the 3rd respondent did not reserve the said area under S. 5 (1) of the Act and, therefore, he was entitled to select the same under S. 5-B of the Act and that the appellant had no right to purchase the same under S. 18 thereof. In the result, he accepted the revision. The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh for quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, but the said petition was dismissed in limine. Hence the present appeal. The scope of this appeal should necessarily be confined to the ambit of the writ petition in the High Court. It is therefore, necessary for the appellant to establish that the order of the Financial Commissioner was without jurisdiction or was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the record.
3. As there was no question of want of jurisdiction in the Financial Commissioner to dispose of the revision, it was contended that the said order was vitiated by two errors of law on the face of the record: firstly, it was argued that the Commissioner committed an obvious error in holding that the 3rd respondent had not reserved the said land under S. 5 (1) of the Act when as a matter of fact he had done so, and secondly, it was said that a landlord who did not reserve any area under S. 5 {1) of the Act but selected the area under S. 5-B of the Act, could not evict the tenant under Section 9 (1) of the Act and, therefore, the tenant had the right under S. 18 to purchase the said land in his possession for the prescribed period.
4. The first question, therefore, is whether the .3rd respondent reserved the disputed land under S. 5 (1) of the Act. The material parts of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder read thus -
Section 2 (4): "Reserved area" means the area lawfully reserved under the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenures) Act, 1950 (Act XXII of 1950), as amended by President s Act of 1951, thereinafter referred to as the "1950 Act" or under this Act.
Section 5 (1): Any reservation before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect and subject to the provisions of Ss. 3 and 4 any land-owner who owns land in excess of the permissible area may reserve out of the entire land held by him in the State of Punjab as land-owner, any parcel or parcels not exceeding the permissible area by intimating his selection
