selection of permissible area in which he is bound to include, firstly, land mortgaged with possession and secondly, land under self-cultivation. However, under the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Reforms Act a landowner cannot have preference to include the land declared surplus under the Punjab Law, the Pepsu Law other than the area which was exempt from utilisation by the State Government immediately before the commencement of the Reforms Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the State that since the area which has been declared surplus under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law, other than which was exempt from utilisation, cannot be preferred to be included in the declaration for reservation of the permissible area, for his adult son from the land so declared surplus, is really without any merit. As already observed, the permissible area of a landowner as defined in sub-section (2) of the Section 4 of the Reforms Act, is subject to the provision of Section 5. Section 5 entitles the landowner to select permissible area for his adult son in addition to the permissible area of his family. The right of the landowner to get permissible area for his adult son in addition to the permissible area of the family cannot held to be taken away merely by his not filing a declaration under Section 5 of the Reform Act. If such landowner fails to make a declaration under Section 5 of the Reforms Act, the Collector has been enjoined upon to obtain requisite information in the prescribed manner in accordance with the provision of section 6 of the Reforms Act. Section 7 of the Reforms Act enjoins duty on the Collector to pass an order determining the permissible area and the surplus area of a landowner or a tenant, as the case maybe. It cannot be successfully contended that in case a landowner fails to make declaration under Section 5 of the Reforms Act, his adult son will not be given permissible area by the Collector when an order is passed under Section 7 of the Reforms Act. The failure of a landowners to furnish the declaration under Section 5 of the Reforms Act has been made an offence under the provision of sub-section (2) of the Section 7 of the Reforms Act and a landowner is liable to be imprisoned for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. If the Legislature intended that in a case where the landowner fails to make declaration, he will not be entitled to get permissible area for his adult son when so determined under Section 7 of the Reforms Act, it would have clearly made provision to this effect in sub-section (2) of Section 7. Since landowner has been given right to get permissible area for his adult son as well omission of the landowner to file the declaration would not take away the right of his entitlement to get
