Appeal No 708 to 1964
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 3 1962 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No 394 of 1962
Bhawani Lal and Mohan Lal Agarwal for the appellant Gopal Singh for respondent No 3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao CJ
This appeal by special leave raises the question of the true scope of the expression selected area within the meaning of section 5 B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 Act No 10 of 1953 as amended by Act No 46 of 1957 hereinafter called the Act
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 section 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 purchase 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 20630 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 928 3rd respondent under section 5 B of the Act and therefore the appellant had no right to purchase the same under section 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 section 51 of the Act and therefore he was entitled to select the same under section 5 B of the Act and that the appellant had no right to purchase the same under section 18 thereof
In the result he accepted the revision
The appellant filed a petition under article 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
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 section 51 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 section 51 of the Act but selected the area under section 5 B of the Act could not evict the tenant under section 9a of the Act and therefore the tenant had the right under section 18 to purchase the said land in his possession for the prescribed period
The first question therefore is whether the 3rd respondent reserved the disputed land under section 51 of the Act
The material parts of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder read thus Section 24 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 hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act or under this Act
Section 51  Any reservation before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect and subject to the provisions of sections 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 landowner any parcel or parcels not exceeding the permissible area by intimating his selection in the prescribed form and manner to the Patwari of the estate in which the land reser 929 ved is situate or to such other authority as may be prescribed
The land under this sub section can only be reserved by the land owner by intimating his selection in the prescribed form and  manner to the Patwari of the estate concerned
Rule 3 Intimation for reservation A land owner having land in excess of the permissible area and intending to make a reservation in pursuance of the provisions of sections 3 4 or sub section 1 of section 5 of the Act shall notify in duplicate his reservation to the Patwari of the Estate in which the land is situated in the form in Annexure B  to these rules
Rule 5
The reservation by the landowner shall be deemed to have been effected as soon as the application is received by the Patwari subject to the verification of all details as hereinafter provided
Rule 6 Procedure for dealing with reservation forms
The Patwari shall after verifying all the particulars given in the forms retain one copy and forward the other copy to the Tehsildar with his report as to the correctness of the particulars referred to 
It will be seen from the said provisions that a valid reservation can only be made by the land owner under section 51 of the Act read with the rules made thereunder when the particulars contained in the application sent by him to the Patwari were verified by the latter
In this case the land owner sent an application to the Patwari in the prescribed form but there is nothing on the record to show that the Patwari verified the correctness of the said particulars
The Financial Commissioner in his order observed Having examined the case carefully I find that the Exhibit PX on which the learned Advocate for the respondent has relied is really no proper form as was required under section 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act
On the other hand it is only a mere report
The proper forms in this case were filed in only in accordance with the provisions of section 5 B and they are on the file
 It has not been shown that the finding is vitiated by any error of law indeed as we have indicated earlier there is no report by the Patwari verifying the particulars given by the appellant
The second contention turns upon the relevant provisions of the Act
It would be convenient at the outset to collect the said provisions at one place
930 lm15 Section 23 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 exceed sixty acres such sixty acres Section 4 Reserved area means the area lawfully reserved under the Punjab Tenants Security of Tenures Act 1950 Act XXII of 1950 as amended by the President s Act of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act or under this Act
Section 2 5 A Surplus area means the area other than the reserved area and where no area has been reserved the area in excess of the permissible area selected under section 5 B or the area which is deemed to be surplus area under sub section 1 of section 5 C and includes the area in excess of the permissible area selected under section 19 B but it will not include a tenant s permissible area Section 5
1 Any reservation before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect and subject to the provisions of sections 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 in the prescribed form and manner to the Patwari of the estate in which the land reserved is situate or to such other authority as may be prescribed Section 5 B 1 A land owner who has not exercised his right of reservation under this Act may select his permissible area and intimate the selection to the pres cribed authority within the period specified in section 5 A and in such form and manner as may be prescribed Provided that a land owner who is required to furnish a declaration under section 5 A shall intimate his selection along with that declaration
Section 9
1 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no land owner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant 1 is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of a small land owner
931 Section 181 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law usage or contract a tenant of a land owner other than a small land owner 1 who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years or The gist of the provisions may be stated thus Permissible area is defined and the landlord is empowered to demarcate a reserved area for his self cultivation out of the permissible area and intimate his selection in the prescribed manner to the Patwari of the estate
The area other than the reserved area is defined as is surplus area
No land owner is competent to eject a tenant unless he is a tenant in the reserved area and if he has made one or other of the defaults mentioned in section 9 of the Act
The State Government shall be competent to utilize the surplus area in the re settlement of the tenants ejected
The tenant who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of 6 years shall be entitled to purchase from the land owner the land so held by him but not included in the reserved area
But for one reason or other some of the landowners did not make the reservation in the manner prescribed under section 5 of the Act and the rules made thereunder
Presumably to give relief to such land owners section 5 B which was inserted by the 1957 Act enabled them to intimate the selection to the prescribed authority within the period prescribed therein ie within a period of six months from the commencement of the Amending Act
If the area selected under section 5 B could be equated with the reserved area the land owner could evict the tenant from that area for the purpose of his self cultivation
In that event it would not be a surplus land which could be allotted for the evicted tenants and it could not also be purchased by the tenants at their option
We are not concerned in this case with small holders
On this analysis the short question that falls to be decided is whether a reserved area can be equated with an area selected by the landowner under section 5 B of the Act
To answer the said question it is necessary to know briefly the scope and purpose of the Act
The purpose of the Act has been neatly summarized by the Financial Commissioner of Punjab in Karam Singh vs Angrez Singh thus The main purpose of that Act seems to be to i provide a permissible area of 30 standard acres to a land ownertenant which he can retain for self cultivation
1 932 ii provide security of tenure to tenants by reducing their liability to ejectment as specified in section 9 iii ascertain surplus areas and ensure re settlement of ejected tenants on those areas iv fix maximum rent payable by tenants and v confer rights on tenants to pre empt and purchase their tenancies in certain circumstances
These purposes must be borne in mind in construing the relevant provisions of the Act
The two concepts on which the entire Act revolves are the permissible area and the surplus area
Out of the permissible area the landowner is empowered to reserve land not exceeding the said area and the balance is defined as the surplus area
This reservation is to enable the landowner to sustain himself by self cultivation
The object of the surplus area is to confer rights in respect thereof on the tenants
This two fold object of the Act cannot be achieved unless the land lord has reserved some land in the manner prescribed under section 5 of the Act
But for one reason or other if the reservation was not made by the land owner section 5 B gives him another opportunity to do so
But it is said that if that be the intention of the Act there was no reason why the same phraseology used in section 51 was not used in section 5 B Though reserved area has been defined there is no definition of selected area 
This indicates that the Legislature did not introduce a new concept of selected area in the Act
Even a comparison of sections 5 and 5 B shows that the process of reservation and selection are almost the same
Under section 51 the land owner after making the reservation intimates his selection in the prescribed form to the Patwari
It is therefore manifest that the reservation is made by the process of selection
So too under section 5 B a land owner who has not exercised the right of reservation under the Act may select his reserved area and intimate his selection
The wording of section 5 B indicates that the selection therein is a selection similar to that in section 51 and the selection in section 5 B is because of default made in reserving by selection under section 51
In terms section 5 B gives the land owner another chance because he has not exercised his right of reservation earlier under section 51
The expressions reservation and selection involve the same process and indeed to some extent they are convertible for one can reserve land by selection and another can select land by reservation
The argument based on section 9 is also without force
It is true that under section 91 1 a tenant of the area reserved under the Act can be evicted and there is no other clause enabling the land owner to evict a tenant from the selected area
It is said that  reserved area is defined and that selected area does not fall under that definition and that therefore the effect of section 9 is that a tenant in the selected area cannot be evicted
But it may be 933 noticed that under section 91 1 the expression reserved area is not used but instead the expression the area reserved under the Act is mentioned
As we have said earlier the land selected by the land owner out of the permissible area can legitimately be described as the area reserved under the Act
If that be the interpretation of section 51 section 5 B and section 91 it follows that under section 18 the tenants cannot claim to purchase the land from the land owner for it is included in the reserved area of the land owner
If the contrary interpretation be accepted it defeats the purpose of the Act
Tenants could be induced and they would be permitted to purchase permissible area to the grave detriment of the land owners
The entire concept of surplus area would be eroded
When asked what purpose sections 5 B1 and 5 B2 would serve the learned counsel said that in the case of selected area the landowner can enjoy the land through the tenant for six years
That would be an insignificant benefit for the landowner and it could not have possibly been the reason for introducing voluntary and compulsory selection of land out of the permissible area under section 51 and 52 of the Act
It is true that under section 51 the landowner has to include in his reserved area certain specified categories of land but under section 5 B his selection is not subject to any such restrictions
It may be that one of the objects of the amendment was to enlarge the discretion of the land owner in the matter of reservation or it may be that in the matter of selection the landowner has to conform to the provisions of section 51
We leave open that question for future decision
Our view is consistent with that accepted by Financial Commissioner Punjab in Karam Singh vs Angrez Singh1 and the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Angrez Singh vs Financial Commissioner Punjab Chandigarh2
We have gone through the two judgments and we are satisfied that the opinion expressed therein is correct
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
GC Appeal dismissed
1 2 64 punj
L R 736


Summary:
The appellant was a tenant of the 3rd respondent since 1950 in respect of 49 bighas of land situated in the Punjab
He applied for the purchase of those lands under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 and rule 23 of the Rules made thereunder
The Assistant Collector allowed his application and on appeal the Collector confirmed the order
The Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner however took the view that the 3rd respondent had not reserved  the land under section 51 of the Act but had selected  it under section 5 B and therefore the appellant had no right to purchase the land under section 18
The appellant s writ petition against the Financial Commissioner s order was dismissed in limine and he came to this Court by special leave
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that i the Financial Commissioner had committed an error of law in holding that the 3rd respondent had not reserved the land under section 51 when in fact he bad not done so and ii a landlord who did not reserve  any area under section 51 of the Act but selected  the area under section 5 B of the Act could not evict the tenant under section 91 of the Act and therefore the tenant had the right under section 18 to purchase the said land in his possession for the prescribed period
HELD  i A valid reservation can only be made by the landowner under section 51 of the Act read with the rules made thereunder when the particulars contained in the application sent by him to the Patwari were verified by the latter
In the present case the landowner sent an applica tion to the Patwari in the prescribed form but there was nothing on the record to show that the Patwari verified the correctness of the said particulars
In view of this it could not be said that the Financial Commissioner s finding that there was no reservation under section 51 was vitiated by an error of law
929 E ii The purpose of the Act must be borne in mind in Construing the relevant provisions of the Act
The two concepts on which the entire Act revolves are the permissible area  and the surplus area 
Out of the permissible area the landowner is empowered to reserve land not exceeding the said area and the balance is defined as surplus area
This reservation is to enable the land owner to sustain himself by self cultivation
The object of the surplus area is to confer rights in respect thereof on the tenants
This twofold object of the Act cannot be achieved unless the landlord has reserved some land in the manner prescribed by section 5 of the Act
But for one reason or another if the reservation has not been made by the land owner section 5 B gives him another opportunity to do so
932 C D Though reserved area  has been defined there is no definition of selected area 
This indicates that the Legislature did not introduce a new concept of selected area  in the Act
Even a comparison of sections 5 and 5 B 927 shows that the process of reservation and selection are almost the same
Under section 51 reservation is made by selection of the land and under section 5 B the landowner selects his reserved area
The expressions reservation  and selection  involve the same process and indeed to some extent they are convertible for one can reserve land by selection and select land by reservation
932 EG It is true that under section 91 1 a tenant of the area reserved under the Act can be evicted and there is no other clause enabling the landowner to evict a tenant from the selected area
But under section 911 the expression used is the area reserved under the Act and not reserved area 
The land selected by the landowner out of the permissible area can legitimately be described as the area reserved under the Act
If that be the interpretation of section 51 section 5 B and section 91 it follows that under section 18 the tenants cannot claim to purchase the land from the landowner for it is included in the reserved area of the landowner
932 H 933 A Karam Singh vs Angrez Singh and Angrej Singh vs Financial Commissioner Punjab Chandigarh  approved