vil Appeal Nos
8068 10 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1631985 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in Civil WP No 2050 2054 of 1984
MS Gujral and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants
Kapil Sibal MR Sharma SK Mehta Vinod Mehta Atul Nanda and MK Dua for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V RAMASWAMI J
One Bishan Das who is the father of respondents 2 to 5 and another by name Muhari Ram whose legal representative are respondents 6 and 7 owned consid erable extent of 212 land in Pakistan
He died on April 11 1948 after he migrat ed to India
After his death the Rehabilitation Department allotted 124 standard acres and 4 14 unit of evacuee land on 26th August 1949
The five sons of Bishan Das were treated as entitled to this land as heirs and successors of the displaced person and accordingly mutation was allowed by the rehabilitation authorities on February 17 1953 in favour of the five sons showing each of them entitled to 24 standard acres and 13 units of land
Permanent rights in regard to this allotted land were also conferred by the authorities under the provisions of the said Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act in the names of the sons of Bishan Das on January 2 1956
These lands were in the occupation of different tenants against whom the five brothers initiated ejectment proceedings by filing applications under section 91i of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 hereinafter called the Act  for ejectment on the ground that each of them is a small land owner as defined in Section 22 of the Act and that they required the land for self cultivation
The Assistant Col lector Hissat rejected the application
The owners  appeals were dismissed by the Collector on January 4 1965
Their revision also was rejected by the Commissioner of Ambala Division on October 26 1965
Their further revision to the Financial Commissioner also met with the same fate on May 17 1966
Thereafter the land owners moved the High Court by a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitu tion on the ground that the land had been allotted to them in lieu of the land owned by their father Bishan Das in Pakistan and consequently the permissible area of each of them is to be computed under the proviso to Section 23 of the Act and so computed the holding of each of the five were well below the permissible limit of 30 standard acres pre scribed thereunder
The writ petition was dismissed but the LP Appeals filed against the same came up for considera tion before a full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The High Court held that in view of the explanation to the proviso the heirs and successors of the displaced persons to whom land were allotted could not claim the benefit of the proviso and that the permissible area under the substantive part of section 23 is 60 ordinary acres
The decision of the full Bench is reported in 1967 Punjab Law Reporter 913
Against this decision the respondent land owners preferred appeals to this Court
By a judgment dated December 15 1978 in Munshi Ram  Ors 
vs Financial Commissioner Haryana  Ors
  this Court confirmed the view of the full Bench
However this Court accepted and argument on behalf of the land owners that in computing the permissible area of each of the land owners the uncultivated area of banjar jadid  banjar kadim  and gair mumkin  lands as on April 213 15 1953 could not be included
As the authorities under the Act had illegally and wrongfully included these types of uncultivated lands orders of the various authorities were set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector con cerned of Hissar District with a direction that he should ascertain the extent of the banjar jadid  banjar kadim  and gair mumkin  of the land owners allottees at the rele vant date namely April 15 1953 and recompute their per missible area after excluding such land
It is now ascer tained that so computed each of the land owners were holding at the relevant date less than 60 acres
When these proceed ings were pending simultaneously applications filed by the tenants under section 18 of the Act for purchase of the surplus area were also being considered by the various authorities
When that matter came up before the Financial Commissioner Haryana in surplus area cases after noting the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in the land owners case the Financial Commissioner set aside the orders of the Collector and remanded the tenants cases for purchase of surplus land with a direction that the Collector must decide the case of surplus area after allowing the permissible 60 acres to the land owners
Thereafter
the Collector took up consideration of the surplus area cases in the light of the remand order
However by his Order dated February 2 1978 the Collector held that the land owners should include in the permissible area all the banjar  lands which have since been brought under cultivation and accordingly directed the land owners to produce the list of permissible area
On appeal by the land owners the Financial Commissioner remanded the cases to Collector with a direc tion that he must decide the cases after excluding all banjar lands 
The tenants filed petitions against this Order to the Financial Commissioner
By the time these cases came up for orders the Supreme Court had decided the land owners eviction cases on December 15 1978 supra
There fore the revision petitions were dismissed
However the Collector was asked to determine the permissible area with reference to relevant date viz April 15 1953
By his Order dated May 6 1982 the Collector determined the area held by each of the land owners after excluding the ban jar  lands as less than the permissible area and that therefore no area owned by them could be declared surplus and accordingly dismissed the purchase application filed by the tenants
The Commissioner by his order dated April 18 1983 confirmed this decision of the Collector
The tenants went in revision before the Financial Commissioner
It was again argued before the Financial Commissioner that he should not have allowed the banjar  area to be excluded from their holding since they had subsequently been brought under cultivation
The Financial Commissioner agreed with the land 214 owners that banjar  lands could not be treated as lands  for the purpose of computing the permissible area that the relevant date for purpose of determining the permissible area is April 15 1953 and in that view dismissed the pur chase applications filed by the tenants
The tenants having failed in the writ petition filed by them questioning the dismissal of their purchase applications have filed these five appeals
The main contention of Mr Gujral learned counsel for the petitioner in these cases was that in determining the question whether a person is a small land owner for the purpose of the Act the entire land owned by him whether cultivated or not cultivated and whether it is banjar  or any other land shall be taken into account
If the total extent of the land so calculated is above the permissible area then unless the land owner has made the reservation as contemplated in sections 3 4 5 and 5A he incurs the penalty under section 5C and the permissible area  will be reduced to 10 standard acres and then again he cannot also choose these 10 standard acres but the tenants would have the option to purchase any land of the land owner including the land under the personal cultivation of the land owner leaving only 10 standard acres
The point in this form was never raised before and therefore the learned counsel for the respondent objected to the counsel raising it for the first time in this Court
But since it is a question of law and the facts were not in dispute we have permitted the counsel to raise this point
It is not in dispute that the land owners had not made any reservation under sections 3 4 and 5 originally nor did they make it after section 5A was introduced though their lands were situated in more than one Patwar Circle within section 5A
However the stand taken by the land owners was that they were small landowners having less than 60 acres and therefore they were not obliged to make any reserva tion and section 5C would not be attracted at all
The following proposition have been settled by the decisions of this Court in Bhagwan Das vs State of Punjab1966 2 SCR 510 and MunshiRam vs Financial Commis sioner Haryana supra
The relevant date for determining the permissible area and the surplus area is April 15 1953 the date on which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 came into force and not the date on which the eviction application was filed
If a person is a small land owner at the commencement of the Act his status is not altered by reason of improvements in the value of his land or re allotment of land on compul sory consolidation of holdings
215 3
Banjar Kadim Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin cannot be taken into account while computing the permissible area and surplus area under the Act
Banjar Kadim and Banjar Jadid do not fall within the purview of the definition of land  under the Act as they are not being occupied or let for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture
Permissible area under the substantive part of section 23 for a person who is not a displaced person is sixty ordinary acres
The concept of standard acre being a meas ure of area convertible into ordinary acres of any class land according to prescribed scales with reference to the quantity of the yield and quality of the soil has been introduced in the definition of permissible area to emphasise the qualitative aspect of a land holding and the maximum limit of sixty acres its quantitative aspect
Section 22 of the Act defining small land owner reads as follows Small land owner means land owner whose entire land in the State of Punjab does not exceed the permissible area 
Explanation In computing the area held by any particular land owner the entire land owned by him in the State of Punjab as entered in the record of rights shall be taken into account and if he is a joint owner only his share shall be taken into account
 The learned counsel for the appellant wanted us to understand and interpret the words entire land with refer ence to the definition of the word land  in section 28 and that sub clause reads as follows  Land  and all other terms used but not defined in this Act shall have the same meaning as are assigned to them in the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 XVI of 1887
 Section 41 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 defines land as follows 216  Land  means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or has been let for agricul tural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture and includes the sites of buildings and other structures on such land
This Court had held in Munshi Ram vs Financial Commissioner supra that banjar kadim and banjar jadid do not fall within the purview of definition of land under the Act as they are not being occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture
It necessarily follows that in calculating the total extent held by a person on the date of the Act for purposes of determining whether a person is a small land owner these banjar lands cannot be taken into account
We are also not impressed with the argument that a land owner shall make a reservation under the Act in all cases irrespective of whether he is a small land owner or not
Section 3 of the Act speaks of a small land owner who by virtue of an allotment made after the commencement of the Act under the comes to hold more than the permissible area of the land
The section enables and provides that in such a case the small landowner may select out of the entire area held by him as a land owner land not exceeding the permissible area and reserve it for himself
The section thus implies that as a small land owner he was not obliged to make any reserva tion
But when by reason of allotment made subsequently under the he comes to hold more than the permissible area he was given an option to select out of the entire land land to the extent of permissible area and to reserve to himself again emphasising that holding more than the permissible area as a necessary requirement to oblige a landowner to make a selection or reservation
Section 4 deals with the case where the person was not a small land owner but has made a reservation under the original 1950 Act which was repealed and replaced by the 1953 Act
This provision ena bles him to make a fresh selection and reservation if his allotment under the had been modified or revised since his earlier reserva tion
Section 5 of the Act provides 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 217 by him in the State of Punjab as land owner any parcel or parcels not exceeding the per missible 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 This again requires only a land owner who owns land in excess of the permissible area to make a fresh selection and reservation to an extent not exceeding the permissible area
Section 5A also deals with a case where a land owner holding in excess of the permissible area but it is with reference to a land owner who has land situate in more than one patwar circle
Section 5B authorised a land owner who was holding lands in excess of the permissible area but has not previ ously exercised the right of reservation to select and reserve the permissible area for his own purposes within the extended period mentioned in that section
The need to make a reservation would thus arise only when the land owner on the relevant date held land in excess of the permissible area
This Court in Gurbux Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 502 accepted that The main purpose of the Act seems to be to i provided a permissible area  of 30 stand ard seems to a land ownertenant which he can retain for self cultivation 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 fights on tenants to pre empt and purchase their tenancies in certain circum stances
 Thus the Act is also intended to place a ceiling on holding of land by fixing a maximum area permissible to be held by a land owner
In other words the excess over the permissible area shall be available as surplus area to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act
Then again section 91i of the Act dealing with the liability of a tenant for 218 eviction states that tenants on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of a small land owner is liable for eviction
If in every case irrespective of whether the person is a small land owner or not he had to make a reser vation then the later portion of this clause referring to a tenant of small land owner was absolutely not necessary
The right of reservation given to a person who holds land in excess of the permissible area is among others to give him an option to select that land which he would like to retain for himself and avoid one of the consequences of enabling the tenant to choose under section 18 of the Act any land including that which is under the personal cultivation of the land owner
It may be mentioned that section 18 of the Act itself specifically provides that the right to purchase is available to a tenant only against a land owner other than a small land owner
In our view therefore it is not necessary and the Act does not make it obligatory on pain of consequences provided under section 5C for a small land owner to make a reservation under sections 3 4 5 5A or 5B
It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that an area of 033 ordinary acres had been excluded in determining total extent held by the land owner on the ground that area was under old tenants and that it should not have been excluded
This point was not raised at any stage
No facts relating to this area is available on record and therefore we cannot permit the counsel to raise this point for the first time in this Court
In the result the appeals fail and they are dismissed
However the parties will bear their respective costs in all the appeals in this Court
Y Lal Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The respondent was sought to be retired compulsorily from service by an order dated August 21 1984 on attaining the age of 55 years under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules pursuant to the Screening Committee s recommendation
He challenged the said order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
The High Court quashed the said order on the finding that the participation of the Head of the Department in the deliberation of the Screening Committee had vitiated its recommendation and order of the State Government on the doctrine of bias since he had on an earlier occasion award ed adverse remarks against the respondent
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD 1 The presence of Head of Department in the Screening Committee did not vitiate its recommendation
Consequently the State Government s order could not be quashed
251E 21 The object and purpose of Fundamental Rules 56 conferring power on the Government to prematurely terminate the service of a Government servant is to ensure efficiency in the administration by weeding out dead wood who may have outlived their utility
In the instant case while exercis ing this power the State Government had constituted a high powered Screening Committee consisting of senior officials of the State Government and the Head of the Department
250D F 22 The Head of Department bad performed his duty in recording _ opinion in the respondent s character roll as no other person was entitled under the rules to adjudge re spondent s work and conduct
As 249 a member of the Screening Committee he was performing duty assigned to him under the rules and Government order for screening records of the officers
He was the best person to assess the efficiency and utility of employees working in his department
He had no personal interest in the matter and there was no conflict between his personal interest and his duties as member of the Screening Committee
Therefore there could not be any question of bias or malice in law
250H 251C 250F JN Sinha vs Union of India 1971 1 SCR 791 referred to
AK Kraipak  Ors
vs Union of India  distinguished
Since the respondent had been reinstated in service after the High Court order and he has now retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation the State Government should not take any steps for reducing his pen sion by treating him to have retired with effect from August 21 1984 251F G