TMI Blog1961 (11) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd-owners are divided into two categories--(1) Small land-owners and (2) other owners. A small land-owner is defined as a a land-owner whose entire land in the State of Punjab does not exceed the 'permissible area' . To this is added an Explanation in these words- 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. 3. Again, speaking broadly, small land-owners are not much affected by the Act but the others, that is, those who are not small land-owners, are placed under several disabilities. They are entitled to reserve to themselves an area out of their holding not exceeding the 'permissible area', but the remaining area of land becomes 'surplus area' which expression the Act defines as 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 5B or the area which is deemed to be surplus area under Sub-section (1) of Section 5C Section 10A of the Act, which was added in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers or not, and they have proceeded to declare the area in excess of 30 standard acres as surplus ignoring altogether the ownership rights of the other members of the joint family in the joint property. The learned Commissioner of Ambala, who has finally dealt with the present cases, has expressed his view (in the case of Madan Lal out of which Civil Writ No. 1054 of 1960 arises) thus: This position would have been all right had there been two land-owners. According to the joint family system Madan Lal may be the shareholder in the ancestral property but, so long as the head of the family is alive, under the revenue law he shall be recorded as land-owner. The other claimants will be recorded in their due places when the succession would open, i.e., not in the lifetime of the original head of the family, in this case Dewat Ram. As such the proposition put forward by the counsel of the Appellant that in the lifetime of Dewat Ram both Dewat Ram and Madan Lal were the joint holders is not in consonance with the existing revenue law. Madan Lal might be a shareholder according to the joint Hindu family but the property would come to his share only when Dewat Ram would die. During th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act of 1950 and whose allotment may subsequently have been modified after the commencement of the present Act, to make a fresh reservation. The expression 'reserved area' is in Section 2 of the Act defined as area lawfully reserved under the present Act or similarly reserved under the previous Act of 1950 called the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenures) Act (XXII of 1950), and Sections 3 and 4 are intended to cover that matter. Section 5 then declares that a reservation before the commencement of the present Act will 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 make a reservation of area for himself not exceeding, of course, the permissible area. Section 5A of the Act, which was inserted by an amending Act of 1957, requires every landowner and every tenant holding land in excess of the permissible area to give information within a period of six months. Section 5-B, also inserted at the same time, authorises a land-owner, who has not previously exercised his right of reservation, to select the permissible area for his own purposes, and Sub-section (2) provides that if this is not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and save in the case of land acquired by the State Government under any law for the time being in force or by an heir by inheritance no transfer or other disposition of land which is comprised in a surplus area at the commencement of this Act, shall affect the utilization thereof in Clause (a). Explanation.--Such utilization of any surplus area will not affect the right of the lartd-owner to receive rent from the tenant so settled. 10. Much of the controversy has been round the meaning of Clause (b) of this section. The next Section 11 prohibits a landlord from curtailing the supply of canal water to a tenant, and Section 12 provides for the maximum rent payable by tenants. Section 13 deals with charges payable for services or facilities provided by land-owners, while Section 14 requires a land-owner to furnish receipts for rent paid to him. Section 14A prescribes the procedure for eviction of tenants. Section 15 has been dropped from the Act. Then comes Section 16, also dealing with certain transfers. It says- 16. Save in the case of the land acquired by the State Government under any law f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such person is situated in more than one patwar circle, he shall also furnish a declaration required by Section 5-A. 13. Sub-section (4) of this section says-- 19-B. (4) The excess land of such person shall be at the disposal of the State Government for utilization as surplus area under Clause (a) of Section 10-A or for such other purposes as the State Government may by notification direct. 14. It will be observed from what I have mentioned that in the main the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act provides for four matters- (1) a ceiling on individual land holding; (2) a certain security of tenure to tenants; (3) resettlement of tenants lawfully evicted; and (4) a right given to certain tenants to purchase land held by them. 15. The Act does not expressly provide for a general re-distribution of land but it is certainly designed to have that tendency, and so far as I can see the intention is to leave each individual owner and similarly each individual tenant in possession of no more than the permissible area. I say 'individual' because the Act expressly contemplates the case of joint owners and tenants, and provides, in the case of owners in the Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y as a juristic person. 18. The Full Bench found in that particular case that for the purposes of the Partnership Act a joint Hindu family could not be treated as a person. There is, in the circumstances, no force in the suggestion that a joint Hindu family is a juristic person or should be so treated for the special purposes of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, and I have little doubt that if the intention of the Act had been to treat a joint Hindu family as a person, it would have contained an express provision to that effect as the Income-tax Act does. Nor do I find any other indication in any part of the Act to suggest that such was the legislative intent. 19. Reliance is then placed on the Explanation to Section 2, Sub-section (2) defining a small landowner which is in these words-- 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. 20. The argument is, and that has been the view of the revenue officers, that what has to be seen is only the entry in the record-of-right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion transfer or others disposition of land occurs at two places in this Act, namely, Section 10-A and Section 16, and the context in which it is used at both these places leaves little doubt that the intention is to prohibit only certain transactions concerning land. In Section 10-A the prohibition is against such transfer or other disposition of land as might possibly affect the utilization of surplus area, and in Section 16 the prohibition is against similar transfer or other disposition of land which might affect the rights of a tenant on that land. The transactions thus desired to be hit are obviously such as have the effect of passing some interest from the existing owner of land to another, and there is little force in the suggestion that these provisions constitute a general or total bar against any kind of dealing with his land by an owner. We have, therefore, to consider whether at the time the members of a joint Hindu family decide to partition their properly by assigning specific shares in it to individual members, any one of them passes any interest in any property to another. It is difficult to agree that any such thing happens when joint Hindu family property is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
