http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: BHAGWAN DAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/1965

BENCH:

ACT: Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953- s. 9(1) (i)-Small Land Owner at commencement of Act whether ceases to be  such if  value  or income of  land  increases  subsequently--Land whether  can  be re-evaluated for  purposes  of  determining status at time of suit-Effect of s. 19-F(b).

HEADNOTE: The appellant was a displaced person from West Pakistan.  In 1949 he was allotted 42 standard acres and 11 units of  land which  were  later consolidated.  In 1958 claiming to  be  a small holder he made an application under s. 14-A(1) of  the Punjab  Security  of  Land  Tenures  Act  1953  before   the Assistant  Collector for the ejectment of respondent  No.  4 who  was  a  tenant of the land.   The  Assistant  Collector rejected   application  on  the  ground  that   because   of improvements   the   income  from  the   lands   had   risen considerably and consequently the land had become equivalent to  more than 50 standard acres, and therefore the  applica- tion  was untenable under s. 14-A.  In appeal the  Collector held that since the appellant was allotted only 42  standard acres and 11 units he was entitled to be treated as a  small land-holder.   The  Collector’s  order  was  upheld  by  the Commissioner and by the Financial Commissioner.  The  tenant thereupon  filed  a  writ petition before  the  High  Court. According to the High Court the status of a landlord had  to be  ascertained as existing on the date of  the  application under  s.  14-A  of  the Act and not  on  the  date  of  the allotment.   Farther  according to the High  Court  what  is ’permissible area’ available to a landlord under the Act had also  to  be  determined as obtaining on  the  date  of  the application for eviction made by the landlord.  On this view the  High  Court  allowed the tenant’s  writ  petition.   In appeal by special leave to this Court, HELD:     Under  the provisions of the Act the  entire  land held by the landowner in the State of Punjab on the date  of the  commencement  of the Act must be evaluated as  on  that date  and the status of the landowner and his  surplus  area must  then  be ascertained.  If he is then found  to  be  ’a small  landowner, he continues to be so for the  purpose  of the  Act,  until he acquires more land and  on  taking  into account the value of the land in terms of standard acres  on the  date  of  the  acquisition, he is found  to  be  a  big landowner.  The landowner is required to make the  necessary reservations  or  selections  and  to  give  the   necessary declarations  so  that his status and the surplus  area,  if any,  held  by him may be so determined.  If he is  a  small landowner at the commencement of the Act, his status is  not altered  by reason of improvements in the value of his  land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

or  re-allotment  of  land on  compulsory  consolidation  of holdings.   S.  19-F(b) which was introduced  into  the  Act during the pendency of the appeal clarified the position  to the same effect. [514 B-D; 515 F] The   appellant   did  not  acquire  any  land   after   the commencement  of the Act.  His status as a  small  landowner was not altered by reason of subsequent improvements or  re- allotments of land on compulsory consolidation of  holdings. On the date of the application, he therefore continued to be a  small landowner.  The High Court was in error in  holding that  the  status of the appellant should be  determined  by evaluating his 5 12 land  in  terms  of  standard acres  on  the  dates  of  the application for eviction. [515 H; 516 A-B] Per  Mudholkar J : Provisions relating to the  valuation  of lands  under  the  Act are to be found  in  s.  19-F(a)  and 19F(b).  The former did not apply to the present case as  it applies only to the ascertainment of ,surplus area’ held  by a  landowner at the commencement of the Act;  the  appellant held  only  ’permissible area’ and no ’surplus are  at  all. Under s. 19-F(b) fresh evaluation of land can take place "at any  time" but the power under that section  is  exercisable only  in  the context of special circumstances, that  is  to say, where the landlord owns land after the commencement  of the  Act  by inheritance, bequest or  gift.   These  special circumstances did not exist in the present case. [519 H; 520 H; 521 B, D] When  the provisions of s. 19F are thus not  attracted,  the Revenue  Assistant before whom an application under s.  14-A for  ejectment  of a tenant is made by a  landlord,  is  not entitled  to  evaluate the land of the landlord  afresh  for ascertaining  whether he is in possession of land in  excess of the permissible area. [521 F] Elaborate rules have been framed under the Act and elaborate provisions  are  also contained in the Act with  a  view  to extend  its  protection  as  far  as  possible  to   tenants cultivating  land.   The omission, therefore,  to  make  any provision  as  to  what has to be done, if as  a  result  of improvements  made by the landlord or by reason of the  rise in  the yield of the land through other causes  would  point only to one conclusion and that is that this circumstance is not to be taken into account for evaluating the land  afresh and recalculating the standard acreage. [521 G-H] It  would  follow that the High Court was in error  and  its order must be set aside.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 541 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the order dated August 23, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Misc.  No. 120 of 1961. Bhagwani  Lal, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwalla,  for  the appellant. Deepak Dutt Chaudhry and B. R. G. K. Achar, for  respondents Nos.  1 to 3. Janardhan Sharma, for respondent No. 4. The Judgment of SUBBA RAO and BACHAWAT, JJ. was delivered by BACHAWAT,  J., MUDHOLKAR, J. delivered a separate  but  con- curring Judgment. Bachawat, J. The appellant is a displaced person to whom 105 ordinary  acres of land equivalent to 42 standard  acres  11 units  in village Jamalpur, Tehsil Hansi,  District  Hissar, were allotted by the Custodian on October 5, 1949 under  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

conditions published in the Notification of the East  Punjab Government  No.  4892/S  dated July  8,  1949.   The  Punjab Security  of  Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act No.  10  of 1953), hereinafter 513 ,referred  to as the Act, came into force on April 5,  1953. On  that  date,  the aforesaid land  was  equivalent  to  42 standard  acres II units, and having regard to proviso  (ii) (b) to S. 2 (3) of the Act, was permissible area in relation to the appellant, and as the appellant did not own any other land in the State of Punjab, he was a shall landowner within the meaning of S. 2(2) of the Act.  On October 22, 1955,  as a  result  of consolidation proceedings, the  appellant  was granted  101.4/5 ordinary acres of land in exchange for  the land  originally allotted to him in 1949.  Respondent No.  4 is a tenant of the appellant in respect of a portion of this land. On  February  20, 1958, the appellant filed  an  application before  the  Assistant  Collector,  1st  Grade,  Hissar  for ejectment of respondent No. 4 under s. 9 (1) (i) of the  Act on the ground that he is a tenant of the appellant who is  a small landowner.  On that date, the aforesaid 101.4/5  acres of  land owned by the appellant was equivalent to more  than 50  standard  acres.  On February 17,  1960,  the  Assistant Collector  dismissed  the  application.  He  held  that  the appellant  was a big landowner, because on the date  of  the application  the  land owned by him was equivalent  to  more than  50  standard acres.  On appeal, on May  2,  1960,  the Collector  of  Hissar  set aside the  aforesaid  order,  and allowed  the  application for ejectment.  He held  that  the appellant was a small landowner as he was a displaced person and  an allotted of less than 50 standard acres.  On  August 30,  1960,  the Commissioner, Ambala Division,  dismissed  a second  appeal,  and  on  January  2,  1961,  the  Financial Commissioner   dismissed  a  revision  petition   filed   by respondent  No. 4. Following his previous ruling in Pat  Ram v. Milawa Ram(1) and Har Chand Singh v. The Punjab State(2), the  Financial  Commissioner  held that the  status  of  the appellant must be determined on the date of the commencement of the Act and subsequent accretions to his holding  arising out  of  consolidation of holdings and improvements  due  to good  husbandry or advent of irrigation should  be  ignored. On August 22, 1961, the Punjab High Court allowed a petition preferred  by  respondent  No.  4  under  Art.  227  of  the Constitution  of  India  and set aside  the  orders  of  the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial  Commissioner. The High Court held that the status of the appellant must be determined by evaluating his land in terms of standard acres on the date of the application for ejectment.  The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave. (1) (1961) 40 Lahore Law Times, P. 28.  (2) (1961) 40 Lahore Law Times, p. 9. 5 14 The question is whether the appellant is asmall landowner within the meaning of S. 9 (1) (i) of the Act.On a  combined reading of ss. 2, 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 10A,19A  and   19D, the scheme of the Act appears to be as follows : The  entire land  held  by the landowner in the State of Punjab  on  the date of the commencement of the Act must be evaluated as  on that  date and the status of the landowner and  his  surplus area, if any, must be then ascertained.  If he is then found to  be  a  small landowner, he continues to be  so  for  the purpose  of  the Act, until he acquires more  land,  and  on taking  into  account  the value of the  land  in  terms  of standard  acres on the date of the acquisition, he is  found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

to  be a big landowner.  The landowner is required  to  make the  necessary  reservations or selections and to  give  the necessary  declarations so that his status and  the  surplus area, if any, held by him may be so determined.  If he is  a small  landowner 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 compulsory consolidation  of holdings. In an unreported decision in Surja v. Financial Commissioner of Punjab and others(1), the Punjab High Court held that the status  of the landowner for the purposes of an  application under  S. 14A of the Act should be determined by  evaluating his  land on the date of the application.  On the  basis  of this ruling, the improvements in the land subsequent to  the commencement  of  the  Act could not  be  ignored;  but  the legislature considered that this decision had the effect  of defeating  the  purpose of the Act.  It is  well-known  that with  a  view to get rid of this decision,  the  legislature inserted  S.  19-F(b) in the Act by the Punjab  Security  of Land  Tenures (Amendment and Validation) Act,  1962  (Punjab Act  No.  14 of 1962).  The object of  this  amendment  will appear  from  the  following passage in  the  statements  of Objects and Reasons published in the Punjab Gazette  (Extr.) dated April 27, 1962 :               "Some  of the recent  judicial  pronouncements               have  the effect of defeating  the  objectives               with which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures               Act, 1953 was enacted and amended from time to               time.. . . Under the scheme of the parent  Act               a  specific period was allowed for  filing  of               reservations  by the landowners the object  of               which  was to find out whether a person was  a               small  landowner or not.  Once that was  found               the  intention was that such a  person  should               continue to be treated as               (1)   Civil Writ No. 486 or 1961.               515               such for the purposes of the Act so long as he               did  not acquire more lands.  In other  words,               his status was not to be altered on account of               improvements  made on the land or  reallotment               of  land during consolidation.   However,  the               High Court took a different view in Civil Writ               No.  486 of 1961 (Surja versus Financial  Com-               missioner,    Punjab   and    others....    ).               Accordingly  clauses  3, 6 and 7 of  the  Bill               seek to neutralise the effect of the aforesaid               decisions."               Clause  7 of the Bill related to ss. 19-E  and               19-F.  The amending Act of 1962 was passed  on               July 4, 1962 during the pendency of the appeal               in this Court.  Section 19-F is  retrospective               in  operation and is deemed to have come  into               force  on  April 15,  1953.   Section  19-F(b)               reads :               "19-F.  For the removal of doubts it is hereby               declared,-               (b)that  for  evaluating the  land  of  any               person  at any time under this Act,  the  land               owned   by   him   immediately   before    the               commencement of this Act, or the land acquired               by him after such commencement by  inheritance               or by bequest or gift from a person to whom he               is  an  heir, shall always  be  evaluated  for               converting  into  standard  acres  as  if  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             evaluation was being made on the date of  such               commencement,  and that the land  acquired  by               him  after  such commencement  in  any  manner               shall always be evaluated for converting  into               standard acres as if the evaluation was  being               made on the date of such acquisition." On  a  reading of s. 19-F(b), it would appear that  for  the purpose  of  determining  the status of  the  landowner  and evaluating  his  land at any time under the  Act,  the  land owned by him immediately before the commencement of the  Act must  always be evaluated in terms of standard acres  as  if the   evaluation  was  being  made  on  the  date  of   such commencement.   It is not disputed that if the land held  by the appellant immediately before the commencement of the Act is  so evaluated, the appellant would be a small  landowner. There is no scope for evaluating the subsequent improvements in  the land due to consolidation operations  or  otherwise. The   appellant   did  not  acquire  any  land   after   the commencement  of the Act.  His status as a  small  landowner was not altered by reason of subsequent improvements or 516 re-allotments   of  land  on  compulsory  consolidation   of holdings.  On the date of the application for eviction,  he, therefore,  continued  to be a small  landowner.   The  High Court  was  in  error  in holding that  the  status  of  the appellant  should  be determined by evaluating his  land  in terms  of standard acres on the date of the application  for eviction. In  the  result, the appeal is allowed.  We  set  aside  the order  of the High Court and restore that of  the  Financial Commissioner  upholding the orders of the  Commissioner  and the  Collector.   We direct that costs  throughout  will  be borne by the parties as incurred. Mudholkar,  J.  This is an appeal by special  leave  from  a judgment  of  the  High  Court of  Punjab  allowing  a  writ petition  under  Art. 227 of the  Constitution  and  setting aside  orders  of the Collector, the  Commissioner  and  the Financial Commissioner made under certain provisions of  the Punjab  Security  of  Land  Tenures  Act,  1953   (hereafter referred to as the Act). The  relevant  facts  are  briefly  these  :  The  appellant Bhagwandas  is  a displaced person from West  Pakistan.   He owned 74 standard acres 133\4 units of agricultural land  in certain  villages in West Pakistan.  On October 5,  1949  he was  allotted 42 standard acres and 11 units of land in  the village    Jamalpur,   Tehsil   Hansi,   District    Hissar. Subsequently proceedings for consolidation of holdings  were taken  under  the East Punjab  Holdings  (Consolidation  and Prevention  of  Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Act 50  of  1948). After  those  proceedings were finalised the  appellant  was granted  an equivalent area of land in the same  village  as described in a sanad granted by the President on October 22, 1955 in exchange for the land earlier granted to him.  Under the  sanad the appellant was granted proprietary  rights  in the land. On  February 20, 1958 the appellant, claiming to be a  small holder  made an application under s. 14-A(i) of  the  Punjab Security  of  Land Tenures Act, 1953  before  the  Assistant Collector, I Grade, Hissar, for the ejectment of  respondent no. 4 who was a tenant of the land.  In his application  the appellant  alleged  that as ’he held less than  50  standard acres  of land he was a "small land owner" and as  such  had the right to evict the tenant and instead cultivate the land himself.   The  application was rejected  by  the  Assistant Collector.  Unfortunately neither party has placed the order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

of the Assistant Collector on the record of this appeal.  It is, however, common ground that the reason for rejecting the application  was  that the Assistant  Collector  found  that because of certain improvements the income from the lands 5 17 had  risen considerably and that consequently  the  standard acreage  of this land had risen from 42 standard acres to  a standard  acreage  above  50 standard  acres  and  that  the appellant’s application was, therefore., untenable under  S. 14-A.    In  an  appeal  preferred  by  the  appellant   the Collector,  Hissar held by his order dated May 2, 1960  that since the appellant was allotted only 42 standard acres  and 11  units he is entitled to be treated as a small  owner  of the land and since the tenant had more than 5 standard acres under his cultivation in addition to the appellants land  he was  liable  to be ejected from the land  belonging  to  the appellant which was in his possession.  The Collectors order was upheld by the Commissioner, Ambala Division by his order dated  August  30,  1960.  The tenant  moved  the  Financial Commissioner,  Punjab in revision against the order  of  the Commissioner but without success.  He then preferred a  writ petition before the High Court which, as already stated, was granted.   According  to  the High Court  the  status  of  a landlord  had to be ascertained as existing on the  date  of the application under S. 14-A of the Act and not on the date of  the  allotment.  Further, according to the  High  Court, what is "permissible area" available to a landlord under the Act  has allow to be determined as obtaining on the date  of the  application  for  eviction made by  the  landlord.   In coming to the conclusion the High Court followed a  judgment of S. B. Capoor J., in a similar matter. In  order to appreciate the contentions urged before  us  on behalf of the par-ties, it is necessary to refer to  certain provisions of the Act.  At the outset I must point out  that the  object  of  the Act was to provide  to  the  tenants  a security  against  ejectment by the landlords except  for  a just  cause.   The  Act has, however,  drawn  a  distinction between  "small land owner" and a "large land owner".   Sub- section (2) of S. 2 of the Act defines small land. owner  to mean  one whose entire land in the State of Punjab does  not exceed  the  permissible  area.  Now, sub-s.  (3)  of  S.  2 defines   permissible   area.   This  definition   draws   a distinction  between  a land owner who is  not  a  displaced person and one who, is a displaced person.  In so far as the former  is  concerned the permissible area  is  30  standard acres.   In  so far as the latter is  concerned  the  second proviso to sub-s. (3) enacts               "Provided that-               (ii)  for a displaced person-               (a)   who has allotted land in excess of fifty               standard acres, the permissible area shall  be               fifty standard               ip.Cl/66-3               518               acres  or one hundred ordinary acres,  as  the               case may be.               (b)   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.               (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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             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 expression ’standard acre’ is defined thus               in sub-s. (5) of s. 2               "Standard  acre"  means  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." If  a land owner is in possession of land in excess  of  the permissible  area  he  is  required  to  follow  a   certain procedure  for indicating which particular land he wants  to be treated as "reserved area".  Land in excess of that  area is  treated surplus area.  The former expression  means  the area lawfully reserved under the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenures) Act, 1950 while the latter expression is defined in sub-s.  (5-A)  of the Act.  It is not necessary to  set  out this  definition  for the purpose of the discussion  of  the question before us.  Under s. 27 of the Act rules have  been framed  for carrying out the purpose of the Act.  There  are two  sets  of  rules, one is the Security  of  Land  Tenures Rules, 1953 and the other is Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules,  1956.  The latter are supplementary to the rules  of 1953.   Rule 2 of the Rules of 1953, which is  the  relevant rule, is as follows :               "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               519               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  Jadid   land,               seventh-eighth  of the value of  the  revelant               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  that  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".               In  the table, Annexure A, land is  classified               under   four  heads  which   are:   "Irrigated               (nehri)",  "Irrigated Chahi"  "Irrigated"  and               "Sailab".    Irrigated   nehri   is    further               classified as "perennial" and "non-perennial".               In Col. 3 is given the valuation for irrigated               nehri land.  For Hansi tehsil valuation of the               land which is perennially irrigated by  canals               is  given  as 16 which means 16  annasing  the               rupee  per  acre and of  non-perennial  as  10               annas  in the rupee per acre.   The  valuation               for irrigated chahi land in the entire  tehsil               is  10 annas in the rupee per acre and of  un-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             irrigated  land  as 5 annas in the  rupee  per               acre.   There is no valuation for sailab  land               which  apparently  means there is no  land  of               this category in the tehsil.  From Table, A it               would  appear that land which falls under  one               classification at the time of allotment or  at               the  time of coming into force of the Act  may               well  fall  under  some other  head  later  on               because  the  quantity of yield is  liable  to               vary.  For instance, if irrigation  facilities               come   to  be  provided  in  land   which   is               unirrigated  at the time of coming into  force               of  the Act or making the allotment  the  land               may  receive the benefit of  irrigation  later               either perennially or non-perennially and  its               yield therefrom may accordingly increase.               Provisions relating to the valuation of  lands               under  the  Act  are to be  found  in  s.  19F               thereof which reads thus :               "For  the  removal  of  doubts  it  is  hereby               declared,-               (a)   that the State Government or any officer               empowered  in this behalf shall  be  competent               and               520               shall be deemed always to have been competent,               to determine in the prescribed manner the sur-               plus  area  referred to in section 10-A  of  a               landowner out of the lands owned by such land-               owner  immediately before the commencement  of               this Act; and               (b)   that  for  evaluating the  land  of  any               person  at any time under this Act,  the  land               owned   by   him   immediately   before    the               commencement of this Act, or the land acquired               by him after such commencement by  inheritance               or by bequest or gift from a person to whom he               is  an  heir, shall always  be  evaluated  for               converting  into  standard  acres  as  if  the               evaluation was being made on the date of  such               commencement and that the land acquired by him               after  such commencement in any  other  manner               shall always be evaluated for converting  into               standard acres as if the evaluation was  being               made on the date of such acquisition." Now, surplus area would fall to be determined only where the land-owner  is  in  possession  of land  in  excess  of  the permissible  area.  I have already given the  definition  of permissible  area.   Where,  as  here,  the  landlord  is  a displaced  person and the land allotted to him is less  than 50  acres  the permissible area so far as  he  is  concerned would  be the area actually allotted to him.  In the -  case of  the appellant it would thus be 42 standard acres and  II units.  Out of this he alleges that he has sold 18  standard acres.   As, however, no argument was advanced before us  on this  basis  I leave this circumstance out  of  account  and proceed  on the footing that the appellant is in  possession not  of  an area less than the permissible. area but  of  an area  equal to the permissible area.  Surplus area means  an area  other  than the reserved area and, where  no  area  is reserved, the area in excess of the permissible area.  Where there is no reserved area or where the area hold by a person is  not in excess of the permissible area the provisions  of S.  4 which -deal with, the reservation of area or those  of ss. 5-A to-5C which deal with selection of permissible  area

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

or  those  of  s. 10-A which deal with  the  utilization  of surplus  area are not attracted.  Therefore, the  provisions of s. 19F(a) which are attracted to a case falling under  s. 10-A will a so not apply.  Moreover the provisions of S. 10- A have no bearing on 521 a  case like the one before us.  For, they  contemplate  the ascertainment  of surplus area held immediately  before  the commencement   of  the  Act.   Obviously,   therefore,   the determination  must refer to the classification of the  land at  that  time.   Apart from that, the  appellant  does  not possess any surplus area since what is in his possession  is merely the permissible area.  The question of utilization of any surplus area cannot thus arise in his case.  That  being so,  no question can arise of evaluating his  lands  afresh. Indeed,  fresh  evaluation at any time is  permissible  only under s. 19-F(b), but that provision deals with only special types  of  cases.  It may be mentioned that ss. 5-A  to  5-C which  deal  with the selection of permissible area  do  not contemplate a case where the classification of land held  by the  landlord has undergone a change because of rise in  the yield therefrom and the standard acreage of the land in  his possession could be said to have increased.  Section 19-A of the Act specifically prohibits the future acquisition by the landlord of land by transfer, exchange, lease., agreement or settlement  any land which with or without the land  already held by him exceeds the permissible area.  Similarly the Act has made specific provisions to deal with a case of  augmen- tation  to the land held by the landlord subsequent  to  the commencement  of  the Act by inheritance, bequest  or  gift. These  are to be found in s. 19-B.  What is to be done in  a case of that type is provided for by s. 19-F(b).  The  power to evaluate land conferred by this provision is exerciseable at ’any time’ but obviously that power is exerciseable  only in the context of the circumstances set out therein, that is to   say   where  the  landlord  obtains  land   after   the commencement  of the Act by inheritance, bequestor gift  and in  no other circumstance.  It would, therefore,  seem  that where the provisions of S. 19F are not attracted the Revenue Assistant  before  whom  an application under  s.  14-A  for ejectment of a tenant is made by a landlord, is not entitled to evaluate the land of the landlord afresh for ascertaining whether  he  is  in  possession of land  in  excess  of  the permissible  area.  Elaborate rules have been  framed  under the  Act and elaborate provisions are also contained in  the Act with a view to extend its protection as far as  possible to  tenants cultivating land.  The omission,  therefore,  to make any provision as to what has to be done, if as a result of  improvements  made by the landlord or by reason  of  the rise  in  the yield of the land through other  causes  would point  only  to  one  conclusion  and  that  is  that   this circumstance is not to be taken into account for  evaluating the land afresh and re-calculating the standard acreage.  If that is so, then it would follow that the High Court and the Assistant Commissioner were in error whereas 522 the  Collector, Commissioner and the Financial  Commissioner were  right in deciding this case.  For these reasons I  set aside  the order of the High Court and restore that  of  the Financial   Commissioner   upholding  the  orders   of   the Commissioner   and   the  Collector.   In   the   particular circumstances  of  the case 1, however,  direct  that  costs throughout will be borne by the parties as incurred. Appeal allowed. 523

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10