Lajpat Rai & Ors Vs. State of
Punjab & Ors [1981] INSC 102 (24 April 1981)
KOSHAL, A.D.
KOSHAL, A.D.
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 1401 1981 SCR (3) 590 1981
SCC (3) 94 1981 SCALE (1)930
ACT:
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of
1953) Ss. 5, 5A and 5-B and Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules 1956 Rule 4
and Form E-Intimation by landlord in Form E-Whether amounts to selection of
permissible area under S,. 5-B(1) Prescribed authority whether can alter the
same.
HEADNOTE:
Respondent No. 3, a displaced person from
Pakistan, was allotted more than 60 standard acres of land. Out of this land he
made an oral gift of some land in lieu of maintenance to his wife, respondent
No. 4, who sold that land to the appellants.
In the proceedings for declaration of the
surplus area of the land owned by respondent No. 3 the Special Collector
included the land sold to the appellants in the "select area" of
Respondent No. 3. The appeal of Respondent No. 3 to the Commissioner was
dismissed as time-barred and this order was upheld in revision by the Financial
Commissioner.
A single Judge dismissed his petition under
Article 226. In appeal, a Division Bench held that the order of the Special
Collector, directing a variation in the reservation made by respondent No. 3
without his consent was not only contrary to the provisions of the Act but was
without jurisdiction and a nullity in as much as the Act vested no power of
such variation in the Collector.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended
on behalf of the appellant, that: (1) the admission to the effect that
respondent No. 3 had intimated his reserved area in Form E to the Collector
before gifting the land to his wife was made before the High Court on behalf of
the appellants on the basis of some misconception on the part of their counsel,
that actually no such reservation was ever made and that the admission could at
best be interpreted to mean that respondent No. 3 had sent an intimation in
Form E to the Special Collector detailing therein the area selected by him as
his permissible area in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 5-B of the Act, and (2) If no reservation was made by respondent No. 3
the whole basis of the impugned judgment falls and the Collector would have
jurisdiction to amend the permissible area of respondent No. 3 by way of
adjustment of the equities arising in favour of the appellants.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: In assuming that respondent No. 3 had
intimated his reservation in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 5, the
High Court was in error 591 and the case had to be decided on the basis of the
factual position that respondent No. 3 had failed to make any reservation under
that sub-section but that he had made a selection in Form E in pursuance of the
provisions of sub- section (1) of section 5-B. [600 H-601A] The inclusion of
the land in question in the surplus area of respondent No. 3 does not effect
the right of ownership of the appellants. [604 A]
1. (a) Reservation of land was envisaged only
in section 5(1) of the Act and had to be intimated within six months from the
date of its commencement i.e. on or before the 15th October, 1953. [599 E] (b)
No provision was ever made in the Act or the rules framed thereunder for a
reservation of land by a land-owner who had failed to send an intimation
thereof on or before the 15th October, 1953. [599 F] (c) What was provided by
section 5-B was, that a landowner who had not exercised the right of
reservation under the Act could select his permissible area and send intimation
thereof in Form E to the prescribed authority within a period of six months
from the 11th December, 1957 i. e. on or before 11th May, 1958. 'Reservation'
was something different from the 'Selection' of permissible area. The two terms
were not only not synonymous but were mutually exclusive. 'Selection' of
permissible area was allowed only to a landlord who had not exercised his right
of 'reservation'. [599 G-600 A] (d) Form E was meant only for intimation of
selection of permissible area under sub-section (1) of section 5B and not for
reservation under sub-section (1) of section 5 which could be made only through
an intimation in the Form in Annexure "B" to the 1953 Rules. [600 B]
2.(a) 'Surplus area' is arrived at by excluding the reserved area from the
total area of a land-owner in case a reservation has been made by him lawfully.
(Clauses (4) and (5-a) of section 2.) [601 C] (b) Where no area has been
lawfully reserved by the land-owner, surplus area is worked out under section
5B or 5C. [601 D] (c) Under section 5, the landowner is entitled to reserve out
of the entire land held by him in the State as landowner, any parcel or parcels
not exceeding the permissible area by intimating his selection in the
prescribed form to the Patwari of the estates, etc. In doing so he is legally
bound to include in his reserved area such land as conforms to the description
of any of the 6 categories covered by clauses (a) to (f) of the proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 5. [601E] (d) Once a reservation has been intimated
within 6 months from the date of commencement of the Act, it cannot be varied
either by act of parties or by operation of law, except with the written
consent of tenant affected by such variation. [601 F] 592 (e) If a land-owner
has failed to reserve land in accordance with the provisions of section 5 he
has another chance to select his permissible area within 6 months from the
commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Act, 1937. [601
G] (f) The prescribed authority is given the power to select the permissible
area of a landowner under sub-section (2) of section 5-B but the mandatory
condition attached to the exercise of that power is that it shall be resorted
to only if the landowner has failed to select his permissible area in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of that section. In other
words, if the concerned land-owner has already selected his permissible area in
accordance with the provision of sub-section (1) of section 5-B, sub-section
(2) of that section does not come into play at all and there is no occasion for
the exercise by the prescribed authority or the power of selection. [602 A-C ]
In the instant case Respondent No. 3 had made a selection of his permissible
area in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 5-B, a
selection which the prescribed authority had no power to vary either under
sub-section (2) of section 5-B or under any other provisions of the Act. The
order of the Special Collector dated March 30, 1962 was therefore passed
without jurisdiction and was a nullity. [602 D-E] Gurucharan Sing and Ors. v.
Prithi Singh and Ors.
[1974] 1 S.C.C. 138, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1981-N of 1970.
From the judgment and order dated the 21st May
1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 195 of
1966.
G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Metha, P.N. Puri and M.K.
Dua for the Appellants.
O.P. Sharma and M.S. Dhillon for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KOSHAL, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated
May 21, 1970 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
accepting a Letters Patent Appeal and holding that in view of the provisions of
sections 5, 5-A and 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), the concerned Collector had no
jurisdiction to vary the reserved area of a land-owner by including therein the
lands sold by him to others.
2. Most of the relevant facts are undisputed
and may be briefly stated thus. Sadh Singh, respondent No. 3, who is a
displaced person from Pakistan, was allotted more than 60 standard acres of
land in village Karyam, Tehsil Nawanshehar, District Jullundur, in lieu of the
land left by him in Pakistan. He also owned a little more than 1 standard acre
of land in village Surwind, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. About 3 years
after the Act came into force, i e., on March 9, 1956, respondent No. 3 made an
oral gift of some of his land in lieu of maintenance to his wife Nirmal Kaur,
respondent No. 4, who entered into an agreement dated January 21,1957 with the
three appellants for sale to them of the land gifted to her. against a
consideration of Rs. 4200. The land covered by the gift was mutated in favour
of respondent No. 4 on April 17,1957 and she conveyed the same to the three
appellants by a registered sale-deed dated August 8, 1957. The agreement
mentioned above as well as the sale deed following it were attested by
respondent No. 3 as a marginal witness.
3. The proceedings for declaration of the
surplus area out of the land owned by respondent No. 3 were initiated by the
Collector on June 20, 1958. They passed through various stages before the
Collector and in appeal before the Commissioner. Ultimately the Special
Collector, Punjab, declared the surplus area of respondent No. 3 after hearing
him and the appellants, through an order dated March 30, 1962, and while doing
so, he included the land sold to the appellants by respondent No. 4 in the
"select area" of respondent No. 3, as prayed for by the appellants.
The order was based on some rulings of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, to
the effect that all sales for valuable consideration effected by a land-owner
after the enforcement of the Act should be included in his "select
area".
Respondent No. 3 unsuccessfully challenged
the order in an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner as time- barred.
The order of the Commissioner was upheld in revision by the Financial
Commissioner. It was then that respondent No. 3 knocked at the door of the High
Court through a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India which
was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that the order of the
Special Collector had become final by reason of the appeal taken against it
being time-barred. The learned Judge observed that respondent No. 3 was not
entitled to any relief in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court under the said article in view of the fact that he had failed to
pursue diligently the remedy of appeal which was open to him.
594 In the appeal which respondent No. 3
filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the Division Bench observed:
"In accordance with section 5 of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the appellant intimated his reserved
area in form E to the Collector before making the gift in favour of his wife.
This fact is not so stated in the pleadings, but the counsel of both the
parties admit this fact to be so".
and after referring to the provisions of
sections 5, 5-A and 5-B of the Act concluded:
"The Collector has no jurisdiction to
vary the reserved area of a landowner by including the land sold by him to
others in his reserved area. Under section 5 of the Act, the only jurisdiction
with the Collector is to find out whether the reservation has been made in
accordance with the directions contained in that section but the Collector has
no jurisdiction to include an area in the reserved area of a landowner which is
not covered by any of the clauses (a) to (f) of the proviso to section 5 of the
Act." In coming to this conclusion. the Division Bench relied upon three
decisions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rendered by other Division
Benches and reported as Bhagat Gobind Singh v. Punjab State and others, State
of Punjab and others v. Shamsher Singh and others, and Mota Singh v. Financial
Commissioner Punjab and if others. An argument raised before it on behalf of
the present appellants that the order of the Collector made in contravention of
section 5 of the Act could at best be treated as an illegal order and not one
passed without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity, was repelled. In this
connection, reliance was placed by the Division Bench on three judgments of
this Court, namely, Nemi Chand Jain v. Financial Commissioner Punjab, Smt.
Kaushalya Devi v. K.L. Bansal, and Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass, another.
In the result, the Division Bench held 595 that the order of the Special
Collector dated March 30, 1962, directing a variation in the reservation made
by respondent No. 3 without his consent was not only contrary to the provisions
of the Act but was without jurisdiction and a nullity in as much as the Act
vested no power of such variation in the Collector. It further held that a
petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by respondent No. 3
with the prayer that the order of the Special Collector dated March 30, 1962,
be quashed was competent, even though he had not exhausted his remedies of
appeal and revision.
In the above premises, the Division Bench
accepted the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the order of the Special
Collector dated March 30, 1962, as also those orders which followed and
confirmed it, and directed the Collector to declare the surplus area of
respondent No. 3 after excluding therefrom the area reserved by him as his
Permissible area.
4. Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the
appellants, has raised the following contentions before us:
(a) The admission to the effect that
respondent No. 3 had intimated his reserved area in Form E to the Collector
before gifting the land to his wife was made before the High Court on behalf of
the appellants on the basis of some misconception on the part of their counsel.
Actually no such reservation was ever made and the admission could at best be
interpreted to mean that respondent No. 3 had sent an intimation in Form E to
the Special Collector detailing therein the area selected by him as his
permissible area in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section
5-B of the Act.
(b) If no reservation was made by respondent
No. 3 the whole basis of the impugned judgment falls and the Collector would
have jurisdiction to amend the permissible area of respondent No. 3 by way of
adjustment of the equities arising in favour of the appellants.
After hearing Mr. Sanghi we find force in
contention (a) but none in contention (b), as we shall presently show.
We may 596 mention here that respondent No. 3
has remained up- represented before us in spite of service.
5. For a proper consideration of the two
contentions, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act as they
originally stood, the amendments made thereto in the year 1957 and the rules
framed thereunder from time to time.
The Act was enforced on the 15th April 1953.
On that date section 5 thereof comprised 5 sub-sections of which sub- sections
(4) and (5) were omitted in the year 1953 itself.
Sub-sections (1) and (3) of that section are
relevant and are reproduced below:
"5. (1) Any reservation before the
commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect, and subject to the
provisions of sections 3 and 4 any landowner who owns land in excess of the
permissible area may reserve out of the entire land held by him in the State of
Punjab as landowner, any parcel or parcels not exceeding the permissible 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:
"Provided that in making this
reservation he shall include his areas owned in the following order:
(a) area held in a Co-operative Garden
Colony, (b) area under self-cultivation at the commencement of this Act other
than the reserved area, (c) reserved area excluding the area under a jhundimar
tenant or a tenant who has been in continuous occupation for 20 years or more
immediately before such reservation, (d) area or share in a Co-operative
Farming Society, (e) any other area owned by him, (f) area under a jhundimar
tenant".
"(3) A landowner shall be entitled to
intimate a reservation within six months from the date of commence- 597 ment of
this Act, and no reservation so intimated shall be varied subsequently whether
by act of parties or by operation of law, save with the consent in writing of
the tenant affected by such variation or until such time as the right to eject
such tenant otherwise accrues under the provisions of this Act." The term
'reserved area' was defined in clause (4) of section 2 thus:
'(4) "Reserved area" means the area
lawfully reserved under the Punjab Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act, 1950 (Act
XXII of 1950), as amended by President's Act, V of 1951, hereinafter referred
to as the "1950 Act" or under this Act.' The Act as originally framed
did not contain any provision for the determination of what is now known as
"surplus area" a term which was introduced into the Act for the first
time in 1955 through the addition of clause (5-a) to section 2.
On the 19th May 1953 were promulgated the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 (for short, the 1953 Rules), under
rule 3 of which a landowner had to notify his reservation to the Patwari of the
concerned estate in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 5
of the Act in the Form designated as Annexure "B" to those Rules.
On the 27th April 1956 were promulgated the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the
1956 Rules). It was by rule 4 thereof that Form E was for the first time
prescribed. That rule stated:
"4. Where a landowner has not reserved
the area permitted for self-cultivation, he will, at the same time as he
submits the declarations prescribed in rule 3 above, intimate, in writing, to
the Patwari/Patwaris of the Circle/ Circles in which his lands are situated,
the land/lands selected by him for self-cultivation..
This intimation shall be in Form E."
This rule clearly indicates that a landowner was given the right to select an
area for self-cultivation only in case he had not reserved such area on or
before the 15th October, 1953.
598 Sections 5-A and 5-B were added to the
Act in the year 1957 with effect from 11th December 1957 by means of Punjab Act
No. 46 of 1957. They state:
Section 5-A "Every land-owner or tenant.
who owns or holds land in excess of the permissible area and where land is
situated in more than one Patwar Circle, shall furnish, within a period of six
months from the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment)
Act, 1957, a declaration supported by an affidavit in respect of the land owned
or held by him in such form and manner and to such authority as may be
prescribed." Section 5-B "(1) A land-owner who has not exercised his
right of reservation under this Act, may select his permissible area and
intimate the selection to the prescribed authority within the period specified
in section 5-A and in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
"Provided that a land-owner who is
required to furnish a declaration under section 5-A shall intimate his selection
along with that declaration.
"(2) If a land-owner fails to select his
permissible area in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the
prescribed authority may, subject to the provisions of section 5-C, select the
parcel or parcels of lands which such person is entitled to retain under the
provisions of this Act:
"Provided that the prescribed authority
shall not make the selection without giving the land-owner concerned an
opportunity of being heard".
Simultaneously the definition of 'surplus
area' contained in clause (5-a) of section 2 of the Act was amended to read
thus:
599 '(5-a) "Surplus Area" means 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 5-B or the area
which is deemed to be surplus area under sub-section (1) of section 5-C and
includes the area in excess of the permissible area selected under section
19-B, but it will not include a tenant's permissible area:
'Provided that it will include the reserved
area, or part thereof, where such area or part has not been brought under
self-cultivation within six months of reserving the same or getting possession
thereof after rejecting a tenant from it, whichever is later, or if the landowner
admits a new tenant, within three years of the expiry of the said six months.'
In consequence of these additions rule 4 of the 1956 Rules was also amended so
as to contain a provision that an intimation under section 5-B (1) of the Act
shall be furnished by a landowner in Form E.
6. In relation to contention (a) the
following propositions emerge from the various provisions of law just above set
out:
(i) Reservation of land was envisaged only in
section 5 (1) of the Act and had to be intimated within six months from the
date of commencement of that Act, i.e., on or before the 15th October 1953.
(ii) No provision was ever made in the Act or
the rules framed thereunder fora reservation of land by a landowner who had
failed to send an intimation thereof on or before the 15th October 1953.
(iii)What was provided by section 5-B was,
inter alia, that a landowner who had not exercised the right of reservation
under the Act could select his permissible area and send intimation thereof in
Form E to the prescribed authority within a period of six months from the 11th
December, 1957, i.e.. on or before 11th May, 1958. Reservation' was something
different from the 'Selection' 600 of permissible area. The two terms were not
only not synonymous but were mutually exclusive. 'Selection' of permissible
area was allowed only to a landlord who had not exercised his right of
'reservation' (iv) Form was meant only for intimation of selection of
permissible area under sub- section (1) of section 5-B and not for reservation
under sub- section (1) of section 5 which could be made only through an
intimation in the Form in Annexure "B" to the 1953 Rules.
7. The propositions just above enunciated
bring out incongruity from which the admission made before the High Court
suffers. There could be no reservation in Form E by respondent No. 3. If he
send an intimation in that Form it could only be about a selection of his
permissible area under sub-section (1) of section 5-B. That this was really so
clearly appears from the following observation made in the order of the Special
Collector dated 2nd March 1961:
"The counsel for the owner argued that
area sold was not included in Form E filed before the Special Collector and
that he was not prepared to include it in the select area of 50 S.A. to which
he is entitled".
The order from which this observation has
been extracted was set aside by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on the
8th January, 1962 when the case was remanded to the Special Collector for a
fresh decision after hearing the three appellants as well as respondents Nos. 3
& 4. The Special Collector then heard all these parties and passed his
order dated the 30th March 1962 which also unmistakably indicates that the
intimation given by respondent No. 3 to the Special Collector was not in
respect of any reservation but covered only a selection of the permissible
area. Reference in this connection may be made to the fact that twice in that
order the Special Collector used the term "select area" in relation
to the lands which respondent No. 3 could be allowed to retain in his
possession .
In assuming (on the basis of the admission
made at the bar) that respondent No. 3 had intimated his reservation in
pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 5, the High Court was thus in error and
601 the case has to be decided on the basis of the factual position that
respondent No. 3 had failed to make any reservation under that subsection but
that he has made a selection in Form E in pursuance of the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 5-B. Contention (a) raised by Mr.
Sanghi is, therefore, accepted in full.
8. We now proceed to consider contention (b)
in the light of the provisions above extracted, a bare reading of which leads
to the following conclusions in relation to that contention:
(a) 'Surplus area' is arrived at by excluding
the reserved area from the total area of a land-owner in case a reservation has
been made by him lawfully. (Clauses (4) and (5-a) of section 2.) (b) Where no
area has been lawfully reserved by the land owner, surplus area is worked out
under section 5-B or 5-C] (c) Under section 5, the landowner is entitled to
reserve out of the entire land held by him in the State of Punjab as landowner,
any parcel or parcels not exceeding the permissible area by intimating his
selection in the prescribed form and manner to the patwari of the estate, etc.
In doing so he is legally bound to include in his reserved area such land as
conform to the description of any of the 6 categories covered by clauses (a) to
(f) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5.
(d) Once a reservation has been intimated
within 6 months from the date of commencement of the Act, it cannot be varied
either by act of parties or by operation of law, except with the written
consent of the tenant affected by such variation.
(e) If a land-owner has failed to reserve
land in accordance with the provisions of section 5, he has another chance to
select his permissible area within six months from the commencement of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment) Act (Punjab Act No. 46 of 1957) in
the prescribed manner.
602 (f) The prescribed authority is given the
power to select the permissible area of a landowner under sub-section (2) of
section 5-B but the mandatory condition attached to the exercise of that power
is that it shall be resorted to only if the landowner has failed to select his
permissible area in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (1) of that
section. In other words, if the concerned land-owner has already selected his
permissible area in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 5-B, sub-section (2) of that section does not come into play at all and
there is no occasion for the exercise by the prescribed authority of the power
of selection.
These conclusions further lead to the
inference that if the prescribed authority (in this case the Special Collector)
exercises the power of selection in a situation to which sub-section 5-B is not
attracted, his order would be without jurisdiction and a nullity and that is
precisely what has happened in this case. As held by us earlier, respondent No.
3 had made a selection of his permissible area in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (1) of section 5-B a selection which the prescribed
authority had no power to vary either under sub-section (2) of section 5-B or
under any other provisions of the Act. The order of the Special Collector dated
March 30, 1962 must, therefore, be held to have been passed without
jurisdiction and, therefore, to be a nullity.
9. In support of the proposition that the
order of the Special Collector did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction,
learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following observations
in Gurcharan Singh and Others v. Prithi Singh and Others, wherein this Court
defined the scope of powers of the Collector while acting under sub- section
(2) of section 5-B of the Act:
"While it is true that a landowner who
fails to reserve or select his permissible area within the prescribed period,
cannot exercise that right subsequently, and thereafter it is for the Collector
to determine the defaulter's permissible and surplus areas, in exercising this
power under section 5-B, the Collector has to act judicially. He is bound to
give notice to the landowner, and the transferees from him, 603 if known.
Thereafter he has to hear the parties, who appear, and to take into
consideration their representations and then pass such order as may be just. In
so exercising his discretion, the Collector may, subject to the adjustment of
equities on both sides, include the transferred area in the 'permissible area'
or the 'surplus area' of the landowner. Thus, in the process the Collector is
not to ignore altogether the wishes of the landowner. He may accept them to the
extent they are consistent with the equities of the case".
It is urged on the authority of these
observations that the Collector has in all cases the power to alter the
particulars of an area reserved or selected by a landowner so as to bring it in
conformity with any equities that may arise in the attendant circumstances.
This proposition is wholly unacceptable to us for the simple reason that in
Gurcharan Singh's case (supra), the landowner had made neither a reservation
nor a selection of his permissible area within the prescribed period, so that
sub-section (2) of section 5-B was undoubtedly attracted to his case. The
observations above extracted were obviously confined to a case of that type,
and have nothing to do with a situation where the landowner concerned has selected
his permissible area in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 5-B so that there is no occasion for the prescribed authority to
exercise his powers under sub-section (2) of that section. Gurcharn Singh's
case, therefore, is of no assistance at all to the case of the appellants.
10. Nor do we see how any equities arise in
favour of the appellants, such as would entitle them to have the land in
question included in the permissible area of respondent No. 3. It is not their
case that any representation to the effect that land would be so included was
made to them by either respondent No. 3 or respondent No. 4. Furthermore they
must be credited with full knowledge of the extent of the land owned by
respondent No. 3 and of the consequences flowing there from in view of the
provisions of the Act. Thus they acquired the land with their eyes open and
subject to all the liabilities and defects from which it suffered in the hands
of their transferor (and also their transferor's transferor). In the absence of
word of mouth of respondent No. 3 or his conduct to the contrary; they cannot
now be heard to say that if respondent No. 3 exercises a right of selection of
his permissible area which the Act confers on him, that right must be modified
to suit their convenience.
604 In this connection we may also mention
that the inclusion of the land in question in the surplus area of respondent
No. 3 does not affect the right of ownership of the appellants. Of course the
result of such inclusion would certainly be that the concerned authorities
would be enabled to settle tenants on the land as permitted by the Act-and that
is a risk which the appellants must be deemed to have bought with the land.
11. For the reasons stated we dismiss the
appeal but with no order as to costs.
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.
Back
