Bikkar Singh vs Financial Commissioner

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.—Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the orders dated 29.05.1985 (Annexure P. 1) and 12.06.1985 (Annexure P. 2) passed by Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P. 3) passed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and order dated 01.06.1993 passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab.

Brief facts of the case are that surplus area case of big landlord-respondent No. 3 was determined by the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 vide order dated 29.05.1985 (Annexure P. 1) whereby 12.1768 hectares of first quality land were declared surplus after giving benefits available to him. After declaration of surplus area, Collector (Agrarian) directed respondent No. 3 to make his selection by mentioning khasra numbers which he wanted to retain with him and which he wanted to put in the surplus pool. But respondent No. 3 failed to do so. Exercising the powers suo motu, Collector (Agrarian) passed order and issued notice u/s 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act for taking possession in favour of the State vide order dated 12.06.1985 (Annexure P. 2). Petitioners claiming to be sitting and continuous tenants under respondent No. 3-big landlord since 1970-71 over the land measuring 40 kanals 8 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 116 Killa No. 13/2(4-4) 14 to 17 (8-0) each and 18/1 (4-4) situated in the area of village Kala Tibba, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, preferred an appeal against the orders passed by the Collector (Agrarian) before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P. 3). They also preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.06.1993 (Annexure P. 4). Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners are sitting tenants over the land in dispute which has been declared surplus by the Collector (Agrarian). As they have been sitting tenants since 1970-71, they are entitled to protection and retain the land as tenants'' permissible area. The orders passed by the authorities are against law and evidence on record. The orders passed by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners made reference to the extract from khasra girdawri from 1970-71 till 1992-93 (Annexure P. 5) to contend that they are in continuous possession over the suit land.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State contended that petitioners were not tenants on the appointed day nor there is any evidence as to how they had come into possession over the land in question. Both, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioners are not in actual possession. Land is vacant and no one can be treated as tenant over the vacant land.

I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Commissioner, after considering evidence on record, has recorded following finding:-

This case was decided by the Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, on 29.5.1985. Later on vide impugned order dated 12.6.1985, the learned Collector ordered that since the landowner did not file any selection for the khasra numbers, the surplus area should be declared on his own, and hence, the area was declared surplus as per Annexure A''. In so far as the rights of the present appellants are concerned, they have not been able to prove their case in any manner, nor they have stated any specific claim about the land in question. In fact, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants did not say anything except the grounds of appeal. Under these circumstances, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

Learned Financial Commissioner has recorded the following finding:-

I have taken into consideration the arguments of the counsel for the parties and have perused the papers filed with revision petition. I find that in the appeal before the Commissioner, the petitioners did not adduce any evidence to show that they were tenants on the appointed day. Even if their appeal was badly time-barred, they ought to have produced evidence if they had any claim. But they failed to do so. Even their revision petition before me was file without a certified copy of order dated 29.5.1985 of Collector (Agrarian), Fazilka, vide which the surplus area case of Kirpal Singh, respondent No. 2, was decided. Vide my order dated 22.9.1922, the counsel for the petitioners was directed to produce the certified copy before the next date of hearing and the case was adjourned to 27.10.1992. Therefore, the case was adjourned to various dates and the petitioner took as many as 10 opportunities for supplying a certified copy of the order dated 29.5.1985. I am as such inclined to agree with the Senior State Counsel that the petitioners have no case and that they only want to delay the utilisation of surplus area. Copies of khasra girdawries brought on record at the time of arguments do not support the case of the petitioners. In these khasra girdawries, the land in dispute has been shown khali throughout even on the crucial date i.e. on 24.1.1971. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners have been tenants on the appointed day. Since the petitioners have badly failed to make out any case, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower revenue authorities.

I have independently considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of record, specifically Annexure P. 5, clearly indicates that first entry in the name of petitioners has come only in the year 1970. But as per the revenue record, land has been shown to be barani and continued to be vacant. However, in 1971-72 some of the crops of gawara and tara mira have been sown. There is no categorical evidence on record to show how the petitioners came into possession over the land in question and in what capacity they entered into the land. The findings of fact have been recorded with regard to the fact that land has remained vacant and khasra girdawri on record does not support the case of the petitioners. On the crucial date land was vacant as such possession of the tenants has not been proved. Both the authorities below have held that petitioners were not in possession of the land in question.

In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by authorities, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders warranting exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction by this Court.

Dismissed.