Civil Appeal No 277 of 1969
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 30 8 67 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No 5067
Naunit Lal for the Appellants
section K Bisaria for Respondent No 2
848 Appeal set down ex parte for RR 1 and 3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J
This appeal on certificate is directed against a Full Bench judgment of the High Court at Chandigarh rendered on November 22 1968 in Letters Patent Appeal No 47 of 1967
It arises out of these facts Bishan Das was a displaced person from West Pakistan where he owned a considerable area of agricultural land
He died on April 11 1948 after his migration to India leaving behind his five sons who are the appellants before us
After Bishan Das s death the Rehabilitation Department allotted 124 standard acres and 14 unit of evacuee land in his Bishan Das name on August 26 1949
Permanent rights in regard to this allotted land were conferred by the Managing Officer on behalf of the President of India under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act in the names of the sons of Bishan Das on January 2 1956
Prior to it a mutation was allowed by the Rehabilitation Authorities on February 17 1953 in favour of the appellants herein showing each of them entitled to 24 standard acres and 13 units of land
Ram Dhan respondent 2 was in possession of the land as a tenant
The appellants applied under Section 91 i of the Punjab Security of Lands Tenure Act 1953 hereinafter called the Act for his ejectment on the ground that each of them is a small land owner  as defined in Section 22 of the Act and that they require the land for self cultivation
The Assistant Collector Hissar rejected their application
Their appeal was dismissed by the Collector on January 4 1965
Their Revision was rejected by the Commissioner of Ambala Division on October 26 1965
Their further Revision to the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate on May 17 1966
The appellants then moved the High Court by a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution alleging that the aforesaid orders of the Assistant Collector Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were illegal without jurisdiction and ultra vires the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder
Their contention was that the land had been allotted to them in lieu of the land abandoned by their father Bishan Das in Pakistan and consequently the permissible area of each of them is to be computed under Proviso 849 ii to Section 23 of the Act and so computed the holding of each of the five would be well below the permissible limit of 30 standard acres prescribed thereunder
It was further contended that since the allotment was made in standard acres and not in ordinary acres the permissible area  of each of the appellants would be 30 standard acres notwithstanding the fact that on conversion into ordinary acres it exceeds 60 ordinary acres
On these grounds the appellants claimed that each of them is a small land owner  and as such entitled to move for eviction of the tenant under Section 91 i of the Act
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
Munshi Ram and his four brothers filed Letters Patent Appeal which was eventually heard by a Full Bench
The Bench held that since the appellants were not displaced persons  within the meaning of the East Punjab Displaced Persons Land Resettlement Act 1949 the concession of an enhanced permissible area under Proviso ii to sub section 3 of Section 2 of the Act was not available to them and their permissible area would be 60 ordinary acres each that since the holding of each of the appellants exceeds that limit they are not small land owners  and as such were not competent to seek ejectment of the tenant
With this reasoning the Full Bench dismissed the appeal
Before considering the contentions canvassed let us have a look at the definition of permissible area  in Section 23 of the Act
This definition reads as under   Permissible area  in relation to a landowner or a tenant means thirty standard acres and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceeds sixty acres such sixty acres Provided that i    ii for a displaced person a who has been allotted land in excess of fifty standard acres the permissible area shall be fifty standard acres or one hundred acres as the case may be b who has been allotted land in excess of thirty standard acres but less than fifty standard 850 acres the permissible area shall be equal to his allotted area c who has been allotted land less than thirty standard acres the permissible area shall be thirty standard acres including any other land or part thereof if any that he owns in addition
Explanation
For the purposes of determining the permissible area of a displaced person the provisions of proviso ii shall not apply to the heirs and successors of the displaced person to whom land is allotted
 The first contention of Mr Naunit Lal is that the words such thirty standards acres in the substantive part of the definition clearly exclude conversion into ordinary cases where the area held in standard acres falls below 30 standard acres
In short the point sought to be made out is that the definition ensure an irreducible minimum of 30 standard acres to a land holder
The contention does not stand a close examination
The flaw in the proposition propounded by the counsel is that it takes into account only one aspect of the definition while ignoring the other
As rightly observed by the High Court in devising this formula for computing the permissible area the Legislature was concerned to put limits on the holdings of land both in its qualitative and quantitative aspects
The concept of standard acre  being a measure of area convertible into ordinary acres of any class of land according to the prescribed scale with reference to the quantity of yield and quality of soil  has been introduced in the definition of permissible area  to emphasise the qualitative aspect of a land holding and the maximum limit of 60 ordinary acres delineates its quantitative aspect
The language of sub section 3 of Section 2 is plain and unambiguous
It proclaims in no uncertain terms the legislative imperative that no land owner or tenant shall hold land exceeding 30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres
By no stretch of imagination therefore the words such thirty acres occurring in the definition can be construed to limit the conversion into ordinary acres only to a case where the holding is 30 standard acres  and not less
Mr Naunit Lal next contended that since the land was allotted in the name of Bishan Das deceased who was a displaced person the EXPLANATION will not be attracted with the result that the per 851 missible area of each of his five sons would be 30 standard acres in accordance with Clause c of Proviso ii of sub section 3 of Section 2
Since each of them was holding only about 24 standard acres they were small land owners
The argument rests on the fallacy that the land was allotted to a displaced person 
The true position is that it was allotted to the sons of Bishan Das who were not displaced persons  within the contemplation of the aforesaid Proviso ii
Section 211 of the Act says Displaced person has the meaning assigned to it in the East Punjab Displaced Persons Land Resettlement Act 1949 Act XXXVI of 1949
According to the definition of the term in East Punjab Act XXXVI of 1949 a displaced person  means a landholder in the territories now comprised in the Province of Punjab in Pakistan or a person of the Punjab extraction who holds land in the West Pakistan and who has since the 1st day of March 1947 abandoned or has been made to abandon his land in the said territories on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances or the partition of the country
 Now the sons of Bishan Das never owned or abandoned any land in West Pakistan
Evidently they were not displaced persons  within the meaning of Proviso ii to Section 23
They are merely heirs of a displaced person who died after his migration to India
Proviso ii therefore does not apply to the case of the appellants who and not their father were the persons to whom the land in dispute has been allotted
The EXPLANATION appended to Section 23 therefore clearly excludes the application of Proviso ii to their case
Their case is fully covered by the substantive part of the definition of permissible area  according to which the maximum which they could hold is 60 ordinary acres
Each of them was holding at the material date in excess of that area and as such they were not small land owners 
The last contention of Mr Naunit Lal is that in computing the permissible area  of each of the appellants the Collector had illegally and wrongfully included uncultivated area of Banjar Jadid Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin land as on April 15 1953 and had also through some oversight failed to allow deduction for the dimunition in their holdings resulting from consolidation
The argument is that Banjar land does not fall within the definition of Land  for the purpose of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953
In support of this contention reference has been made to several decisions of the High Court at Chandigarh
According to sub section 8 of Section 2 of the Act Land shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Section 2c of that Act defines Land  to mean land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture and includes the sites of buildings and other structures on such land
In Nemi Chand Jain vs Financial Commissioner Punjab1 H R Khanna J speaking for a Division Bench of the High Court held that Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid land cannot be taken into account while computing the surplus area under the Act because not being occupied or let for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture it does not fall within the purview of Land  under the Act
This ruling has been consistently followed by the High Court in its subsequent decisions some of which are reported as Sadhu Ram vs Punjab State2 Amolak Rai vs Financial Commissioner Planning Punjab3 and Jaggu vs Punjab State4 and Jiwan Singh vs State of Punjab5
In our opinion this view taken by the High Court proceeds on a correct interpretation of the statutory provisions as it stood at the relevant time
Learned counsel for the tenant respondent also does not question the soundness of this view
He however does not accept the particulars of the areas of Banjar and Gair Mumkin Land supplied by Mr Naunit Lal in the form of a Goshwara
We will therefore while upholding the view taken by the High Court in regard to the interpretation and application of Section 23 Proviso ii of the Act allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court and the impugned orders of the Assistant Collector Collector and the Commissioner and remit the case to the Collector concerned of Hissar District with the direction that he should ascertain the extent of the Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin land of the appellants allottees at the relevant date and recompute their permissible area after excluding such Banjar and Gair Mumkin land then dispose of the applications of the appellants under Section 91i afresh
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
In relation to a land owner or a tenant the term permissible area as defined in section 23 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 provisions of proviso ii shall not apply to the heirs and successors of the displaced person to whom land is allotted
The appellants  father a displaced person owned considerable agricultural land in West Pakistan
After his migration to India and subsequent death in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan 124 standard acres were allotted in his name
Mutation of the property was sanctioned in favour of the appellants and permanent rights were conferred in their names
Alleging that they were small land owners  as defined in the Act and that they required the land for self cultivation they applied for ejectment of the respondent 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 and revision application to Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were also rejected
In their writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution they contended that if the permissible area is computed under proviso ii to section 23 of the Act the holding 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 held that since the appellants were not displaced persons the concession of an enhanced permissible area under proviso ii to section 23 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
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 section 23 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 area uncultivated Banjar land which does not fall within the definition of land for the purposes of the 1953 Act had wrongly been included
Rejecting contentions 1 and 2  HELD 1
The language of section 23 proclaims in no uncertain terms the legislative imperative that no land owner or tenant shall hold land exceeding 30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres
The words such thirty acres occurring in the definition cannot be construed to limit the conversion into ordinary acres only to a case where the holding is thirty standard acres and not less
The concept of standard acre being a measure of area convertible into ordinary acres of any class of land according to the prescribed scale with reference to the quantity of yield and quality of soil has been introduced in 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 F 2
The appellants were not displaced persons within the meaning of proviso ii to section 23
They were heirs of a displaced person who died after his migration of India
Therefore proviso ii had no application to the appellants
The Explanation clearly excludes application of proviso ii to their case which is fully covered by the substantive part of the definition of permissible area under which the maximum they could hold was sixty ordinary acres
At the material time each of them was holding land in excess of the sixty ordinary acres and therefore they were not small land owners  851 D F Accepting the third contention and allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the Collector concerned
852 F
HELD that 3
a Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid cannot be taken into account while computing the surplus area under the Act because not being occupied or let for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture it does not fall within the purview of land  under the Act
852 B C Nemi Chand Jain vs Financial Commissioner Punjab AIR 1964 Punj 373 approved
b The Assistant Collector should ascertain the extent of the Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin area of the appellants at the relevant date and recompute their permissible area after excluding such areas
852 G