(1) Where a tenant has been ejected from any land in excess of the pcrmissible arca on grounds other than those mentioned in section 9, before the commencement of this Act, and after the 15th August 1947 and such land is under self-cultivation, such tenant shall 3[subject to the provisions of thIs Act be entitled to be restored to his tenancy in the manner prescribed on the same terms and conditions on which it was held by him at the time of this ejectment, on an application made to an Assistant Collector of me FIrst Grade having Jurisdiction, within one year from the date of intimation of rcservatlon after the commencement of this Act. or, if no such reservation is made \Vlthll1 the period specified in sub-section (3) of section 5. two years ii'om the date or commencement of this Act:
Provided that if more tenants than one have been ejected from the same tenancy, the right of application for restoration shall be exercisable in serial order of priority commencing from the tenant first ejected and to the extent in each case of the permissible area. after takll1g into account any other tenancy, or land which the ejected tenant holds at the time of his application for restoration.]
(2) On receipt of an application the Assistant Collector shall. after gIvIng to the parties notice in writing and a reasonable oppOliunity to be heard.
determine the dispute summarily and shall keep a memorandum of eVldencc and a gist of his final order with brief reasons therefor.
(3) When an application has been made. any proceedings in relation to thc same matter pending in any other court or before any other authority shall bc 1 Inserted by Punjab Act 0.6 of 1998 2 Added by Haryana Act 24 of 1984 3 Substiluted by Punjab Act 57 of 1953.
stayed on receipt of inforn1ation by that court or authority from such Assistant Collector of the fact of having received the application and also such proceedings in a court or before any authority shall lapse when the dispute has been determined by the Assistant Collector acting under this Act.
(4) A landlord or any other person in actual possession of land at the time of restoration shall be entitled to such compensation as may be determined by the Assistant Collector. from the tenant intended to be restored, for any loss suffered in consideration of anything done prior to the date of his first receiving information of the application:
Provided that no ejected tenant shall be restored to his tenancy as provided hereinbefore unless he has paid compensation as determined by the Assistant Collector Lothe landowner or other person, ifany, as the case may be.
1[10-A. Surplus area for resettlement of ejected tenants.- (a) The State Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, shall be competent to utilise any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected, or to be ejected, under clause (i) of sub-section (I) of Section 9.
(b) Notwithstanding anythll1g contained in any other law for the time being inforce 2[and save in the case ofland acquired by the State Government under any law [pr the time being in force or by an heir by inheritance] no transfer or other disposition of land which is comprised in surplus area, at the commencement of this Act, shall affect the utilisation thereof in clause (a).
Explanation.- Such utilisation of any surplus area will not affect the right of the landowner to receive rent from the tenant so settled.]
3[(c) For the purpose of determining the surplus area of any person under this sectIon any judgment, decree, or order of a court or other authority.
obtained after the commencement of this Act and having the effect of diminishing the area of such person which could have been declared as his surplus area shall be ignored.]
Comments Section IO-A and 19-8-- The gifts made by landowners who exceeded their permissible area having come by additional lands by inheritance are to be ignored or taken into account when computing the surplus area in their hands, having regard to S.
19-8 read with S. IO-A. S. IO-A does not militate against this mandate ofS. 19-8. S.
IO-A(a) is wide in its terms and encompasses all surplus area, however. obtained.
Under S. IO-A(b), lands acquired by an heir by inheritance are saved in so far as dispositions of such lands are concemed. Although in the hands of the propositus, it is surplus land. if among the heirs it is not, then their transfers will not be affected by the interdict of S. IO-A(a). There is no conflict between S. IO-A and S.19-B. State of Haryana v. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1952.
Scction IO-A added by Punjab Aet II of 1955 and shall always be deemed to havc becn inscrted with effect from 15.4. 1953, vide section 10 of Punjab Act No. 14 of 1%2.
2 . Inserted by Punjab Act 0.4 of 1959, section 2.
3 Clause (c) added with effect from the 15.4. 1953 Vide by Punjab Act No. 14 of 1%2 Section lO-A(c), 18--0ther authority--Meaning of --Includes officer under Section 18. Per majority -The object of S. 10-A(c) cannot be fulfilled unless the widest meaning were given to the expression "court or other authority". "Other authority" is very other authority within or without the Act. The other authorities in S.
10-A(c) include officer under S. 18. The plain meaning ofS. 10-A(c) is that any order by any authority which shrinks the surplus area of the landlord is invalid to the extent laid down in the clause. State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, AIR 1974 SC 994.
S.1O-A(b)--"Transfer" -- [Per majority, Sarkaria, 1. Contra:] --The expression "transfer" is wide enough to cover n'ansfers by operation of law unless expressly excluded. Special exclusions to save transfers by way of inheritance and compulsory land acquisition by State have been made which would have been supererogatory had involuntary transfers automatical1y gone out of the pale of S. 1O-A(b). Hence S.
1O-A(b) would apply to transfer by operation of law under S. 18. State of Punjab v.
Amar Singh, AIR 1974 SC 994.
S. 1O-A(b)--Consent order--Scope--(Per majority):-- Where a compromise goes against a public policy, prescription of a statute or a mandatory direction to the Coul1 to decide on its own certain foundational facts a razi cannot operate to defeat the requirement so specified or absolve the court from the duty. The resultant order will be ineffective. Any authority, like the Collector enjoined to apply S. 10-A(b) and (c) may decline to act on a compromise which has ripened into an order if the agreement benveen the parties disposes of property in violation of a statutory mandate. Smctly speaking, collusive razis cannot affect the State which has the right to utiltse surplus lands for resettling tenants. The public policy of S. 10-A cannot be outwitted by consent orders calculated to defeat the provision and without the statutory authority charged with the enquiry being satisfied about the bona fides of and eligibility for the purchase. State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, AIR 1974 SC 994.
I [10-B. Saving by inheritance not to apply after utilisation of surplus area.- Where succession has opened after the surplus atea or any part thereof has been utilised under clause (a) of section lO-A, the saving specified in favour of any heir by inheritance, under clause (b) of that section shall not apply in respect of the area so utilised.]
. Comments Sections 10-A and 10-B--Process of utilisation of Surplus area ""hen complete--Held: While al10tment ofland is an initial stage in the process of utilisation of the "surplus area". it does not complete that process as it IS necessary for the allottee to obtain a certificate of al1otment. take possession of the land within the period specified for the purpose, and to execute "quabuliyat" or "patta" in respect thereof as required by Rules 20-A to 20-C of the Rules of 1956. S. 1O-A(b) has the effect of saving the land, comprised in the "surplus area". if it has been acquired by an heir by inheritance. So when the process of utilisation of the deceased's "surplus area" had not been completed by the time his heirs by inheritance made the application under S. 10-A(b) and S. 10-B to the authorities concemed, it was permissible for those authorities to re-examine the question whether there was any "surplus area" at all after the holding had been inherited by his nvo heirs in equal shares so as to reduce the area of the holding of each one of them below the permissible area. FinanciaL Commissioner v. Haryana State, KaLa Devi, AIR 1980 SC 309.