# MUNSHI RAM & ORS v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & PRS

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 846
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-12-15
- **Bench:** R. S. Sarkaria, V. D. Tulzapurkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/munshi-ram-ors-v-financial-commissioner-haryana-prs-7672
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Punjab Security of Lands Tenure Act, 1953- s. 2(3) scope of-"Perniissible area" how computed-Appellants sons of a displaced person from Pakistan
-S. 2(3) if applicable to heirs of a deceaised displaced person-Banjar land
if should be excluded in computing "permissible area".
In relation to a land-owner or a tenant, the term "permissible area" as
defined in s. 2(3) 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 agriculturill
land in West Pakistan.
After bis migration to India and subsequent death,
in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan 124 standard acres \\'e"·e allott~d in
E
his name. Mutation of the property was sanctioned in favour of the appellants
and permanent rights \Vere conferred in their names.
F
G
ff
Alleging that they were 'small land-owners' as defined in the Act, and tbnt
/
they required the land for self-cultivation they applied for ejectment of the
n spr1ndent 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 Hnd revision application to Commi5'iioncr and Financial Co1nmissioner were also rejected.
In their writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution they contended
that if the "permissible areai. is computed under pro\'iso (ii) to s. 2(3) of the
Act, the holciing 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 helJ that since the appellants
were not displaced persons, the concession of an enhanced permissible area
under proviso (ii) to s. 2(3) 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.
• •
•
)
..
j
MUNSHI RAM v. FIN. COMMR. (Sarkaria, !.)
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 s. 2(3) 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 1rea" uncultivated Banjar land
·-which does not fall \Vithin the definition of
1'land" for the purposes of the
1953 Act had wrongly been included.
Rejecting contentions (I) and (2),
HELD : 1. The language of s. 2(3) proclaims in no uncertain tenns the
'legislativ¢ in1perative that no land owner or t~nant shall hold land exceeding
30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres. The rwords "such thirty acres" occur-
, ring in the definition cannot be construed to IiPiit the conversion into ordinary
. acres only to a case where the holding is thi~·ty standard acres and not less.
The concept of standard acre being "a mdasure of area convertible into
. ordinary acres of any class of land
accordi~g to the pr

## Text

A
B
c
D
846
MUNSHI RAM & ORS.
v.
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & PRS.
December 15, 1978
[R. S. SARKARIA AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.]
Punjab Security of Lands Tenure Act, 1953- s. 2(3) scope of-"Perniissible area" how computed-Appellants sons of a displaced person from Pakistan
-S. 2(3) if applicable to heirs of a deceaised displaced person-Banjar land
if should be excluded in computing "permissible area".
In relation to a land-owner or a tenant, the term "permissible area" as
defined in s. 2(3) 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 agriculturill
land in West Pakistan.
After bis migration to India and subsequent death,
in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan 124 standard acres \\'e"·e allott~d in
E
his name. Mutation of the property was sanctioned in favour of the appellants
and permanent rights \Vere conferred in their names.
F
G
ff
Alleging that they were 'small land-owners' as defined in the Act, and tbnt
/
they required the land for self-cultivation they applied for ejectment of the
n spr1ndent 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 Hnd revision application to Commi5'iioncr and Financial Co1nmissioner were also rejected.
In their writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution they contended
that if the "permissible areai. is computed under pro\'iso (ii) to s. 2(3) of the
Act, the holciing 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 helJ that since the appellants
were not displaced persons, the concession of an enhanced permissible area
under proviso (ii) to s. 2(3) 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.
• •
•
)
..
j
MUNSHI RAM v. FIN. COMMR. (Sarkaria, !.)
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 s. 2(3) 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 1rea" uncultivated Banjar land
·-which does not fall \Vithin the definition of
1'land" for the purposes of the
1953 Act had wrongly been included.
Rejecting contentions (I) and (2),
HELD : 1. The language of s. 2(3) proclaims in no uncertain tenns the
'legislativ¢ in1perative that no land owner or t~nant shall hold land exceeding
30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres. The rwords "such thirty acres" occur-
, ring in the definition cannot be construed to IiPiit the conversion into ordinary
. acres only to a case where the holding is thi~·ty standard acres and not less.
The concept of standard acre being "a mdasure of area convertible into
. ordinary acres of any class of land
accordi~g to the prescribed scale with
reference to the quantity of yield and quality of soil" bas been introduced
iu 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, Fl
2. The appellants \Vere not displaced perso~s within the meaning of proviso
(ii) to s. 2 (3).
They were heirs of a .displaced person who died after his
. migration of India. Therefore, proviso (ii) hai;f no application to the appellants.
The Explanalion clearly excludes applicatiori of proviso (ii) to their case,
which is fully covered by the substantive pat~ of the definition of "permissible
. area" under which the maximum they could h'old was sixty ordinary acres. r\t
the material time, each of them was holctin;g land in excess of the sixty
, ordinary acres and therefore, they were not 's0iall land owners.' (851 D-F]
'-.._
Accepting the third contention and alloWing the appeal and rcmittin~ 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 pufposes subservient to agriculture, it
·does not fall within the purview of 'land' under the Act. (852 B-CJ
Nemi Chand Jain v. Financial Connnissioner, Punjab, AIR 1964
Punj. 373; approved.
(b) The Assistant Collector should ascertatin the extent of the Banjar Qadim
and Banjar Jadid and Gair ~Iumkin area of ~he appellants at the relevant date
·and recompute their permissible area after excluding such areas. [852 G].
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : qivil Appeal No. 277 of 1969.
.
'
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated
30-8-67
of the
lPunjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 50/67.
Naunit Lal for the Appellants.
S. K. Bisaria for Respondent No. Z.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Appeal set down ex-parte for RR 1 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
SARKARIA, J.-This appeal on certificate is directed against a Full
Bench judgment 0£ 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 1/4 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 Ohan, respondent 2, was in possession of the land as a
tenant.
The appellants applied under Section 9(1) (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 2(2) 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 !he same fate on May 17, 1966.
The appellants then moved the High Court by a writ petitionunder 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 con·
tention was that the land had been allotted to them in lieu of the Iancf
abandoned by their father, Bishan Das, in Pakistan, and consequently,
the permissible area of each of them is to be computed under Provis()
•
• ,
,..
• '
•
MUNSHI RAM v. FIN. COMM!\. (Sarkaria, !.)
849
'
(ii) to Section 2(3) of the Act, and so co)nputed, the holding of each
of the five would be well below the permis~ible limit of 30 standard
acres prescribed thereunder. It was further contended that since the
11llotment was made in standard acres, an~ not in ordinary acres, the
'permissible area' of each of the appella4ts would be 30 standard
acres, notwithstanding the fact that on coitversion into ordinary acres,
it exceeds 60 ordinary acres.
On
thesei 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 9(1)(i) of the Act.
-~-
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed
the writ
petition.
,
Munshi Ram and his four brothers liled Letters Patent Appeal,
which was eventually heard by a Full Bench.
The Bench held that
since the appellants were not 'displaced jiersons' 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 2(3)
of the Act.
This definition reads as under :
" 'Permissible area' in relation to a landowner or a
tenant, means (thirty standard acre~) 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 lknd in excess of fifty
standard acres, the petmissible area
shall be
fifty standard acres or
1 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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 s.c.R ..
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
intoaccount only one aspect of the definition while ignoring the other.
As rightly observed by the High Court, in devising this formula
E
for computing the permissible area, the Legislature was concerned to
put limits on the holdings of land both in its qualitative and quantita-y
tive aspects.
F
G
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.
H
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-
•
t
'
'
f
•
MUNSHI RAM v. FIN. COMMR"· (Sarkaria, !. )
I
851
missible area of each of his five sons wpuld be 30 standard acres in
accordance with Clause (c) of Proviso :,(ii) of sub-section
(3)
of
Section 2.
Since each of them was ho1ding 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 2(11) of the
Act says : "Displaced person" has the )lleaning assigned to it in the
.......
East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949 (Act
XXXVI of 1949). According to the qefinition 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
o; a oerson 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
1the said territories on account
of civil disturbances or the fear of such: disturbances, or the partition
of the country." Now, the sons of Bi$han Das never owned
or
abandoned any land in West Pakistan.' Evidently, they were
not
'displaced persons' within the meaning of Proviso
(ii)
to Section
2 ( 3). They are merely "heirs of a disi;>laced 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
J
•
•
'-....appended to Section 2 ( 3), therefore, clearly excludes the application
of Proviso (ii), to their case.
Their case is fully covered by the
substantive part of the definition of 'pepnissible area' according to
which the maximum which they could h,bld is 60 ordinary acres. Each
of them was holding, at the material d~te, 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 appelfants, the Collector had illegally
and wrongfully included uncultivated area of Ban jar J adid, Ban jar
Qadim and Gair Mumkin land as on April 15, 1953, and had also
through some oversight, failed to allov,'. deduction for the dimunition
in their holdings resulting from consolidation. The argument is that
Danjar 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 matle 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
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 2 S.C.R.
Act, 1887.
Section 2(c) 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 v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab('), 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 v. Punjab State('), Amolak Rai v. Financial
Commissioner,
Planning, Punjab(') and Jaggu v. Punjab State(') and Jiwan Singh v.
State of Punjab( 5 ).
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 2(3)
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 Ban jar Qadim and Ban jar J adid 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 9(l)(i) afresh.
In the circumstances of the case, there will
be no order as to costs.
N.V.K.
(I) AIR 1964 Punj. 373-1964 LXYI p. L.R. 278
(2) 1965 P.L.J. 84
(3) (1966) 45 LLT. 185
(4) (1967) 46 LLT 64; 1967 P.L.J. 248
(5) AIR 1972 P. & H. 430.
Appeal allowed.