Case: Sant Singh Nalwa and Another Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors., Etc

Single Judge was not justified in striking down the Rules as being ultra vires.Moreover, it is obvious that the Rules were made under section 27 of the Act which authorises the Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. If the dominant object of the Act was to take over the surplus area according to the formula contained in various provisions of the Act particularly sub sections (3) and (5) of s.2, there is no material on the record to show that the Rules do not fulfil or carry out the object contained in the Act. Moreover, in Jagir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court while considering a similar contention rejected the argument that the Annexure framed under the Rules was bad as it did not consider the nature and quality of the Soil. In this connection, the Division Bench observed thus:-"It is thus clear that the formation of an assessment circle necessarily takes into consideration the various factors mentioned by the learned author and those include the nature of soil and its quality apart from various other factors affecting the yield. The circumstance therefore, that in the Annexure the State of Punjab has been split up into assessment circles, as determined at the time of the Settlement, is highly significant, and leaves no doubt that Settlement, is highly significant and leaves no doubt that the nature and the quality of the soil inherent in the formation of an assessment circle have been taken into consideration for valuing the land for purposes of its conversion into standard acres. At the same time, the existing sources of irrigation have all been taken into consideration. It is, in the circumstances, impossible to agree that the Annexure in any manner violates the direction contained in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.We are, in the circumstances, unable to agree that the disputed rule and Annexure A attached to the Rules are ultra vires the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act."We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations made by the High Court and endorse the same. With due respect, the view taken by Sarkaria J., as he then was (the single Judge in the instant case) is not at all in consonance with the scheme and spirit of the Rules framed under the Act and is based on a wrong interpretation of the nature extent and ambit of the classification made in annexure A.12. We therefore fully agree with the Division Bench judgment of the High Court that the classification is in accordance with the provisions of sub section (5) of s. 2 of the Act and is therefore, constitutionally valid. The first contention put forward by the counsel for the appellants is therefore overruled.13. Coming now to the second contention that even if the classification is correct, the revenue authorities were wrong in treating the surplus land in dispute as unirrigated area. We find no substance in this argument. The relevant Annexure which gives the surplus land in District Karnal is to be found at page 308 of the compilation of Punjab &Haryana Local Acts (vol VII) where while lands classified as Chahi, Abi, Nehri, Unirrigated and Nehri/Non-perennial are mentioned, there is no mention of sailab or adna sailab lands. Whereas at page 306 in the same volume there is no sailab land except in tehsil Sonepat. Thus, it appears that so far as Karnal District is concerned there was no sailab land at the time when the Rules were framed and the classification was made. Even if the land in question could be treated as sailab and equated with the land in Sonepat then the valuation would have been at 12 annas as shown at p. 306 of the aforesaid compilation, in which case this would be more detrimental to the interests of the appellants. The Collector and the Commissioner have therefore rightly treated the land as unirrigated which is almost the lowest category and whose valuation is given as 9 annas per acre. We, therefore, find no error in the classification made by the revenue authorities.We are unable to agree with the counsel for the appellants that as the land in question did not fall in any of the heads of classification made in District Karnal they will carry no value at all because this is directly opposed to the various schemes of the classification made under the Rules. A subsidiary contention in this very argument was that the land should have been valued in accordance with Rule 2, provisos (a) to (c), which may be extracted thus:"2. Conversion of ordinary acres into standard acres. The Equivalent, in standard acres, of one ordinary acre of any class of land in any assessment circle, shall be determined by dividing by 16, the valuation shown in Annexure A to these rules for such class of land in the said assessment circle;Provided that the valuation shall be-(a) in the case of Banjar Qadim land, one-half of the value of the class previously described in the records and in the absence of any specific class being stated, one-half of the value of the lowest barani land.(b) in the case of Banjar Ja did land, seven-eighth of the value of the relevant class of land as previously entered in the records, or in the absence of specified class in the records of the lowest barani land; and(c) in the case of cultivated thur land subject to waterlogging, one-eighth of the value of the class of land shown in the records or in the absence of any class, of the lowest barani land."14. The three categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) as extracted above do not at all cover the land of the appellants which is sailab or adna sailab and therefore they cannot be given the benefit of any of these three sub- clauses of the proviso. For these reason s, the second contention is overruled.15.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Coming now to the first point raised by the appellants regarding the constitutionality of the Rules framed under the Act, after hearing the counsel for the parties we find no merit in this contention. Sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act merely requires that the Rule should classify the land according to the quantity of the yield and quality of the soil. The Rules have classified the land by preparing a schedule consisting of various Annexures which divide the land s according to the quantity of yield and quality of the soil into various categories. A perusal of the Annexures to the Rules clearly shows that the valuation statement and the class of land has been described not only as being applicable to one place or the other but in view of the entire topography of every district or tehsil, it is manifest that in a peculiar State like Punjab and Haryana diverse factors, namely, the situation or position of the land, its nearness to the river, the irrigation facilities, the ravages of flood, the fertility of the land and its produce and various other similar circumstances have to be taken into consideration in determining the nature and character of thenow to the first point raised by the appellants regarding the constitutionality of the Rules framed under the Act, after hearing the counsel for the parties we find no merit in this contention. Sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Act merely requires that the Rule should classify the land according to the quantity of the yield and quality of the soil. The Rules have classified the land by preparing a schedule consisting of various Annexures which divide the land s according to the quantity of yield and quality of the soil into various categories. A perusal of the Annexures to the Rules clearly shows that the valuation statement and the class of land has been described not only as being applicable to one place or the other but in view of the entire topography of every district or tehsil, it is manifest that in a peculiar State like Punjab and Haryana diverse factors, namely, the situation or position of the land, its nearness to the river, the irrigation facilities, the ravages of flood, the fertility of the land and its produce and various other similar circumstances have to be taken into consideration in determining the nature and character of thetherefore fully agree with the Division Bench judgment of the High Court that the classification is in accordance with the provisions of sub section (5) of s. 2 of the Act and is therefore, constitutionally valid. The first contention put forward by the counsel for the appellants is thereforenow to the second contention that even if the classification is correct, the revenue authorities were wrong in treating the surplus land in dispute as unirrigated area. We find no substance in this argument. The relevant Annexure which gives the surplus land in District Karnal is to be found at page 308 of the compilation of Punjab &Haryana Local Acts (vol VII) where while lands classified as Chahi, Abi, Nehri, Unirrigated and Nehri/Non-perennial are mentioned, there is no mention of sailab or adna sailab lands. Whereas at page 306 in the same volume there is no sailab land except in tehsil Sonepat. Thus, it appears that so far as Karnal District is concerned there was no sailab land at the time when the Rules were framed and the classification was made. Even if the land in question could be treated as sailab and equated with the land in Sonepat then the valuation would have been at 12 annas as shown at p. 306 of the aforesaid compilation, in which case this would be more detrimental to the interests of the appellants. The Collector and the Commissioner have therefore rightly treated the land as unirrigated which is almost the lowest category and whose valuation is given as 9 annas per acre. We, therefore, find no error in the classification made by the revenue authorities.We are unable to agree with the counsel for the appellants that as the land in question did not fall in any of the heads of classification made in District Karnal they will carry no value at all because this is directly opposed to the various schemes of the classification made under the Rules. A subsidiary contention in this very argument was that the land should have been valued in accordance with Rule 2, provisos (a) to (c), which may be extractedConversion of ordinary acres into standard acres. The Equivalent, in standard acres, of one ordinary acre of any class of land in any assessment circle, shall be determined by dividing by 16, the valuation shown in Annexure A to these rules for such class of land in the said assessment circle;Provided that the valuation shall be-(a) in the case of Banjar Qadim land, one-half of the value of the class previously described in the records and in the absence of any specific class being stated, one-half of the value of the lowest barani land.(b) in the case of Banjar Ja did land, seven-eighth of the value of the relevant class of land as previously entered in the records, or in the absence of specified class in the records of the lowest barani land; and(c) in the case of cultivated thur land subject to waterlogging, one-eighth of the value of the class of land shown in the records or in the absence of any class, of the lowest baranithree categories given in clauses (a), (b) and (c) as extracted above do not at all cover the land of the appellants which is sailab or adna sailab and therefore they cannot be given the benefit of any of these three sub- clauses of the proviso. For these reason s, the second contention is overruled.